2006-12-06
41
1
7
REPS
0
0
2006-12-06
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9.00 am and read prayers.
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLES AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
1
BILLS
R2672
First Reading
1
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Billson.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
1
1
09:01:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
0
Mr BILLSON
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present legislation to give effect to minor but necessary measures that will correct a number of anomalies and improve administrative procedures in the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio. The measures will improve the support we provide to our veterans and defence personnel.
The Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Statements of Principles and Other Measures) Bill 2006 will amend the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to enable the Repatriation Medical Authority to review one or a number of factors in a statement of principles, rather than the entire contents of the statement of principles.
The Repatriation Medical Authority’s medical and scientific experts formulate statements of principles that are used to assess whether or not a claimed injury, disease or death is war or service related.
The Repatriation Medical Authority reviews the statements of principles regularly to ensure they are based on the latest medical and scientific evidence—in other words, best practice.
The amendments will enhance the review process, making it quicker and more appropriately focused.
This bill also amends the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to enhance the operation of rules on existing income streams and clarify policies relating to those income streams.
These changes include consequential amendments, in response to changes in the family law, to allow the means test to be applied to certain non-superannuation annuities that are split following a divorce property settlement.
Other amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act will enable benefits and allowances, the rates or amounts of which are fixed by or calculated under Veterans’ Entitlements Act regulations or any other Veterans’ Entitlements Act legislative instrument, to be funded from the consolidated revenue fund.
This bill also corrects minor errors and anomalies in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004.
These acts provide treatment, rehabilitation and compensation for all permanent and reserve members of the ADF, cadets and cadet instructors who suffer an injury or disease as a result of service after 30 June 2004.
Benefits provided by the new scheme match and, in many cases, enhance those provided under previous arrangements.
However, certain unintended anomalies in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act mean that the act, in a small number of areas, does not truly reflect its original intentions.
This bill corrects those anomalies, including removing the age 65 age limit from the Special Rate Disability Pension which should be payable for life, consistent with the Special Rate or TPI pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.
The bill will also correct the provisions covering liability by excluding the acceptance of a self-inflicted disease. This brings the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act into line with the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
The bill also includes amendments that will ensure that service personnel incapacitated by injury or disease during training are remunerated at levels commensurate with what they would have earned if they had completed their initial training and will provide for the payment of travelling expenses for claimants attending a hearing by the Veterans’ Review Board.
Amendments in the bill will re-open section 88A of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to certain persons eligible under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This will enable those eligible persons to receive treatment of a specified kind as determined by the Repatriation Commission.
Other amendments will clarify the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in relation to who may lodge a claim on behalf of a member or a dependant who is under the age of 18 years and will remove the unnecessary requirement for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a treatment path for a serving member.
The proposed changes and minor technical amendments contained in the bill will enhance my department’s capacity to deliver benefits and entitlements for our veteran and defence force communities. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan O’Connor) adjourned.
MARITIME LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS) BILL 2006
2
BILLS
R2693
First Reading
2
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mrs De-Anne Kelly.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
2
2
09:06:00
Kelly, De-Anne, MP
FK6
Dawson
NATS
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
0
Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Bill amends the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to implement annex VI (prevention of air pollution from ships) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, commonly known as MARPOL.
The bill also incorporates other miscellaneous amendments that are unrelated to annex VI. These include changing references to ‘pilot’ in the Navigation Act 1912 to ‘licensed pilot’ and references in the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to ensure that recent amendments to the act correctly reflect the recently revised annex I of MARPOL.
Annex VI was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in September 1997 and came into force internationally on 19 May 2005.
The majority of the bill—schedule 1 which implements annex VI—will commence on a date to be proclaimed. This is due to the accession process required for annex VI through the International Maritime Organisation. It is intended that the commencement date will coincide with the date that annex VI enters into force for Australia.
The bill adds a new part to division 12 of the Navigation Act 1912, to provide for periodical survey of Australian registered ships to ensure the ship is constructed in accordance with the annex VI requirements, and for the issue of an International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate. Foreign-registered vessels are required to have certificates issued by their own flag states when visiting Australian ports. The bill also amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to define the operational measures required in relation to the carriage and use of fuel oil on board ships, including the sulfur content of fuel oil and fuel oil quality requirements.
The proposed amendments set limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibit deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances. The annex also includes a global cap of 4.5 per cent on the sulfur content of fuel oil.
Annex VI contains provisions allowing for special sulfur oxide (SOx) emission control areas to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions. In these areas, the sulfur content of fuel oil used on board ships must not exceed 1.5 per cent. Alternatively, ships must fit an exhaust gas cleaning system or use any other technological method to limit SOx emissions.
Both the Baltic Sea area and the North Sea are designated as SOx emission control areas.
This bill continues the government’s efforts to prevent pollution by ships and maintains the close alignment Australia has with the International Maritime Organisation’s international conventions.
Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan O’Connor) adjourned.
COMMITTEES
3
COMMITTEES
Treaties Committee
3
Report
3
3
09:10:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
1
0
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee’s report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 81: Treaties tabled on 8 August 2006 (2).
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—by leave—I am pleased to table report 81 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Transfer of Nuclear Material, done at Canberra on 3 April 2006, and the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, also done at Canberra on 3 April 2006.
Australia presently has 19 bilateral safeguards agreements which cover the transfer of Australian uranium to 36 countries and Taiwan. We have exported uranium to countries with whom we have a bilateral safeguards agreement since 1979.
These agreements will provide for the transfer of Australian uranium to China.
The committee conducted this inquiry over four months and received 34 submissions. We held public hearings in Canberra, Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne. The committee also visited the Beverley uranium mine in South Australia.
We received a range of views from the uranium industry, environmental organisations, anti-nuclear organisations and private individuals.
There are several levels of oversight in addition to these treaties. China joined the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1992 and is a member of the IAEA. China has signed and ratified the additional protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2002.
These bilateral safeguard agreements provide an additional layer of oversight. They provide a treaty level agreement which proscribes the use of Australian uranium for any military purpose.
The treaties will be implemented operationally through the administrative arrangements which will be concluded between Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office and the China Atomic Energy Agency.
Both government and opposition members of the committee have concluded that the sale of uranium to China, protected by these safeguards, is in the national interest. I should point out that there is a dissenting report from the Australian Democrats senator, Senator Andrew Bartlett.
In addition the committee have made a number of further recommendations to support Australia’s strong position in global non-proliferation efforts.
The International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards budget is only $US120 million. The IAEA Director General, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, has stated that the IAEA are operating on a ‘shoestring budget’. The committee has recommended that Australia review the International Atomic Energy Agency funding requirements and that Australia increase its voluntary contributions to that body.
The committee has also recommended that Australia pushes within the IAEA for conversion facilities in the five declared nuclear weapons states under the NPT to be subject to safeguards.
The committee has further recommended that the resources for the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office be increased to ensure safeguards are applied effectively.
The committee also received some evidence relating to thorium reactors, which were said to be proliferation-proof. Thorium is currently a by-product of mineral sands, which Western Australia is rich in. The committee has recommended that the Australian government fund R&D in the area of thorium energy generation to compare its waste and energy production with conventional reactors.
Australia has 36 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves, which are recoverable at less than $40 per kilogram. Some expect China’s nuclear power generation capacity to increase eightfold over the next 25 years. Estimates available to the committee suggest that, at a current price of $100 per kilogram, with Australia selling an estimated 2,500 tonnes of uranium to China, this would earn Australia $250 million a year.
Another consideration is that nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions. Seventy-five per cent of China’s energy needs are currently met from coal and natural gas, with the remaining quarter predominantly from hydropower. China is seeking to diversify away from coal into natural gas, hydropower and nuclear power. As Peter Morris, from the Minerals Council of Australia, said before the committee:
Every 22 tonnes of uranium used saves the emission of ... one million tons of CO relative to coal fired generators.
The committee has concluded it would be in Australia’s national interest for these two treaties to enter into force. It is possible that Australian uranium could be exported to China by 2007, but most contracts in this area are three to five years in advance.
I would like to thank all those who made submissions and appeared before the committee. I would like to thank the secretariat: committee secretary, James Rees, inquiry secretary, Stephanie Mikac, Serica Mackay and Heidi Luschtinetz for all their help in ensuring the inquiry ran smoothly.
Mr Speaker, I commend report 81 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to the House.
5
09:16:00
Wilkie, Kim, MP
84G
Swan
ALP
0
0
Mr WILKIE
—Report 81: Treaties tabled on 8 August 2006 (2), released today by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties concerning the agreements signed between Australia and China for the transfer of nuclear material and for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy is an important document for Australia and its stance on nuclear non-proliferation. Although the committee recommends that binding treaty action be taken for both of these agreements, it is doing so on the basis of recommendations for Australia to lead a new initiative to strengthen nuclear safeguards. While the exports enabled by the agreements represent a boon for the Australian uranium industry, there are some legitimate concerns about the effectiveness of the international safeguards system to monitor nuclear activity.
As nuclear power generation is likely to expand around the world this century, those concerns are only going to intensify and so it is a fundamental duty for uranium-producing nations which will benefit from this expansion to lobby for the strengthening of nuclear safeguards. Most importantly this means delivering the level of funding deemed necessary by the International Atomic Energy Agency to perform its safeguarding duties. Over the past 20 years the IAEA’s safeguards department has experienced little real growth despite a significant increase in the amount of nuclear materials and facilities placed under safeguards. As the Director-General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has stated, the IAEA’s safeguards department has a budget comparable to the Vienna police force. In this age of international terrorism, this is simply unacceptable.
Not only does the IAEA’s funding shortfall prevent the training of new inspectors but also it prevents the IAEA from purchasing advanced satellite-monitoring technology, investing in research and development, constructing its own state-of-the-art scientific lab for particle analysis and, most significantly, it constrains the degree to which the IAEA’s nuclear safeguards are perceived to be effective by the international community.
While we recognise that one of the greatest threats to international and national security is nuclear terrorism, until this concern is translated into dollars and cents, the IAEA will not be able to deal effectively with this danger. Therefore, we have recommended that Australia take positive action to address this shortfall.
Another way in which JSCOT has recommended that nuclear safeguards be strengthened is through its call for increased funding to be allocated to the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office’s safeguards support and international outreach programs. These programs have provided much valuable support in assisting the IAEA to develop safeguards concepts, equipment and procedures as well as helping other nations in the Asia-Pacific region to fulfil their non‑proliferation obligations. Unfortunately, the programs are constrained by a very restrictive budget, and are significantly smaller than the safeguards support programs operated by other major uranium producers, such as Canada. By significantly increasing the funding allocated to the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office’s safeguards support and international outreach programs, Australian experts and officials can further enhance their role in aiding countries within our region to improve their safeguards capabilities and ensure that effective safeguards are being applied among customers of Australian uranium.
One area of concern raised in a number of submissions made to the inquiry regarded the starting point of IAEA safeguards. Currently the IAEA only applies safeguards after uranium is converted into a form that is deemed as strategic, which is generally considered to be the conversion of natural uranium ore concentrates into uranium hexafluoride gas. What that essentially means is that, when Australian drums of uranium yellowcake are first shipped to China, they will pass through a conversion facility not covered by IAEA safeguards. While Iran’s continuing development of enrichment technology and general flouting of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has prompted the IAEA to revise the starting point of safeguards for non-nuclear weapon states, no likewise revision has been sought for the weapon states. Nuclear safeguards are essentially a means of developing trust between nations regarding the peaceful uses of nuclear fuels and technologies. Undoubtedly that trust could be expanded significantly for uranium supplying nations, such as Australia, if all conversion facilities were brought under international supervision.
In the proceedings of the committee’s inquiry, some very interesting submissions were received concerning the development of thorium reactors. This is an area of nuclear research still in the development stage, but much of the evidence heard on the issue suggested such research was quite promising. Some experts in the field have even suggested that there is probably more energy available for use from thorium in the minerals of the earth’s crust than from both uranium and fossil fuels. As with uranium, Australia possesses large quantities of thorium, yet unlike uranium, thorium has the distinct advantage that it cannot be rendered into a form usable for weapons. It also has another advantage—that is, a lot of it comes from Western Australia. Essentially it cuts the proliferation risk straight out of the issue of nuclear power. While there is clearly a long way to go in research and development of thorium based reactors, this is one area of nuclear research in which the committee believes Australia should invest its efforts heavily.
I commend the report of our inquiry to the House and I thank all committee members for their efforts to ensure that this report is soundly based and presents a sensible suite of recommendations to the government. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat for their hard work in supporting our deliberations.
I would like to thank Joel Marks, who worked on this inquiry as part of the parliamentary internship program of the ANU. Joel developed an excellent report on the issues covered in the inquiry as part of his studies at the ANU. I know that the committee appreciated his briefing on nuclear safeguards.
I commend the report to the House and call on the government to implement its recommendations.
Dr SOUTHCOTT
(Boothby)
09:21:00
—I move:
That the House take note of the report.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING FOR REPRODUCTION AND THE REGULATION OF HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 2006
7
BILLS
R2651
Second Reading
7
Debate resumed from 5 December, on motion by Dr Washer:
That this bill be now read a second time.
7
09:22:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
1
0
Mr LINDSAY
—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a short statement.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The honourable member for Herbert may proceed.
HK6
Lindsay, Peter, MP
Mr LINDSAY
—Mr Speaker, I expect to be absent from the House when a vote is taken on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I would like the parliament to note that, were I present, I would vote for the bill.
7
09:22:00
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
0
Mr COSTELLO
—The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 were passed some four years ago. They prohibit human cloning, prohibit the creation of human embryos by any means other than to help a woman become pregnant, and allow the use for research—under strict regulation and licence—of human embryos created through assisted reproductive technology. These are embryos that would otherwise be left to die. I supported each of the related bills.
The bills required an independent review of their operation by December 2005. The review was conducted by John Lockhart, a man for whom I have enormous respect who served his country as a distinguished judge and whom I had the honour of appointing as a governor to the Asian Development Bank. His report recommended lifting the ban on creating human embryo clones for research, including the production of embryonic stem cells, provided the embryos are not implanted into the body of a woman or allowed to develop for more than 14 days. A cloned embryo so implanted could, if medical science develops sufficiently, become a fully-fledged human being. The 14-day limit arises from the fact that at day 15 the appearance of the primitive streak is the first developmental point at which a multicellular structure is formed.
I have received many calls and letters from constituents regarding the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, and I thank them all for their input. I have considered all of them carefully. I want to mention in particular a visit I had from Cathy Manners, who is suffering from a degenerative disease and has become a powerful advocate for embryonic stem cell research. I also had a visit from Dr Stephen Livesey, from the Australian Stem Cell Centre, which is a pioneer centre of excellence for research in this area.
It is argued that embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, that they have much greater capacity than adult stem cells to yield cures to degenerative diseases, although no-one can rule out that adult stem cells have the potential to yield such results. Nobody argued that, if we went with embryonic stem cell research, we should not continue with adult stem cell research. Most of the proponents of embryonic stem cell research argue we should do both.
If it were not for the hope of medical breakthroughs and the ending of suffering and disability, this bill would not be here. The bill is put forward for the best of motives. It is because of the good that people believe this research can do that they are prepared to support the cloning of human embryos. The cloning of human embryos is not something we would support of and for itself. It is a matter that certainly gives me disquiet. The disquiet arises from the fact that, by cloning an embryo, we are producing a genetic replica of an existing person.
Proponents of the bill say that, because this embryo will only be allowed to exist for 14 days, we can be assuaged that the disquiet that we would otherwise have about cloning will not come about. But I find no great comfort in the fact that the embryo itself will be terminated after 14 days. The committee’s conclusion on an embryo created by somatic cell nuclear transfer states:
... if such an embryo were implanted in the uterus of a woman to achieve a pregnancy, the individual so formed would certainly have the same status and rights as any other human being. However, a human embryo clone created to extract stem cells is not intended to be implanted, but is created as a cellular extension of the original subject. The Committee therefore agreed with the many respondents who thought that the moral significance of such a cloned embryo is linked more closely to its potential for research to develop treatments for serious medical conditions, than to its potential as a human life.
According to this argument, the fact that an embryo is marked for death at the outset deprives it of moral significance. This appears to me to be a rather self-serving argument. The argument is that, because we have marked it for no significance, it has no such significance, and it dodges the underlying question: was it right to create the cloned embryo for this purpose in the first place? I find this a very troubling proposition.
The committee also saw inconsistency in experimenting on excess embryos created through assisted reproduction while not allowing the creation, through SCNT, of embryos for experimentation. It said that this attaches greater importance to the treatment of infertility than to the treatment of other diseases that might be cured by stem cell research. I do not see such an inconsistency. SCNT embryos would not exist but for experimentation and destruction; fertilized embryos are created for the purpose of living. One set of embryos is created for the purpose of human life, even if we know only a minority will fulfil that potential; the other would be created for the purpose of experimentation and certain—indeed, legally mandated—destruction. I see that as a big differentiation.
Some contributors to this debate question the importance of the purpose in assessing this question. Yet our entire criminal law is based upon the need to prove purpose—actus rea and mens rea: the criminal act and the criminal state of mind in the criminal law, intent and purpose feature strongly in moral reasoning. Indeed, the strongest argument for this research is its purpose—the hope of finding medical cures. The reason that we are here discussing this proposal now, four years after our last debate, is that medical science is developing all the time, and developing for good. We are being asked now to approve something all of us voted to ban four years ago. We are told that we can draw a line on what is ethically permissible and what is not, and that the line lies at 14 days. But let us suppose that in four years time we were told that scientists were on the brink of a medical breakthrough and that it could only be done if embryos were allowed to develop another 14 days. Can anyone imagine the parliament, having approved cloned embryos for research for 14 days, letting go the possibility of medical breakthrough rather than extending the time limit for another 14 days, or indeed another 28 days? I do not find this time limit of 14 days a convincing one. In fact, I suspect it will prove to be shifting, and a shifting line is not one that I would anchor legislation upon.
I respect the motives of those who have brought on this legislation. I believe that they have done it according to their own good conscience and for the best of reasons. This was not something I supported in 2002 and I have not been persuaded to change my mind in the interim. I do not find these issues simple, nor believe it is an occasion to label those of a different opinion as morally inferior or lacking moral clarity. This is a difficult debate, but it is one that has been conducted with a civility that reflects well on the parliament. I believe this is what a parliament exists for—to represent the nation, to speak on the great questions where there is division of opinion, and to resolve them according to policy and good conscience. For the reasons that I have set out, I will not be supporting this legislation.
9
09:32:00
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
0
0
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—This is a matter with deep resonance in my electorate. My office has been contacted by a number of constituents seeking to influence the direction of my vote on this matter, which intersects faith and claims for possible scientific progress. I am aware that the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 raises issues which are traumatic to some of my constituents. To this end I am deeply respectful of their sincere feelings and attitudes on this matter. Whilst not in accord with their belief about the starting point of life, I still appreciate the intensity of the feelings of those people.
This is why I have always been liberal about the need for a conscience vote within my party on such matters. Nevertheless, the UK High Court in 2001 determined that an embryo that is created through the mechanism of therapeutic cloning is not a human life. This is a view that is distinctly at variance with the stance of these constituents. This bill raises profoundly complex issues which require significant scientific knowledge and understanding. Having forsaken science in fourth year high school, it has been a steep learning curve for me. My support for this bill is based on a general commitment and desire to see medical solutions for a range of diseases and injuries. These are presently very debilitating, painful conditions that cannot be treated. Each has attracted varied speculation about possible progress on cures.
This bill seeks to subject clinical practice and scientific research involving assisted reproductive technology and the creation and use of human embryos to specific national legislation. Indeed, this regulatory move is critical if our science community is to be able to work along with their colleagues in Europe and the United States. To this end, the bill is not just about stem cells and cloning. I note a letter from the Americans for Stem Cell Therapies and Cures of 14 November this year, which, in having talked about the $3 billion 2002 initiative in that state for funding, further commented:
Modern scientific research exists across international boundaries and global collaboration is essential to accelerate opportunities to make stem cell therapy a reality for a broad range of debilitating diseases. The Australian Stem Cell Centre and the scientists they represent are a vital component of a competitive and ethical international stem cell research community, most evident in their involvement in international collaborative initiatives and organisations such as the International Consortium of Stem Cell Networks. The state of California recognises that Australia is a leader in stem cell research and many Californian institutes presently collaborate with some of Australia’s leading scientists. By adopting the recommendation of the Lockhart report, Australian legislation will become a leading global partner to that of the state of California, allowing our best researchers to extend existing collaboration and form a global partnership in alliance to accelerate the progress of stem cell research towards a greater understanding of disease and injury and to make available new therapies for a broad range of debilitating diseases and injuries.
That letter covers the heavy expenditure in California after a popular vote there and lays down Australia’s situation if it is not involved in this area: there is currently a large degree of collaboration, research being organised between that state and this country, and it will be somewhat endangered if this legislation does not go ahead.
There has been much public comment that the current ban on the trade and commodification of human eggs, sperm and embryos will be watered down. No such thing will happen. This bill addresses the Lockhart review finding that the 2002 legislation allowing research on excess assisted reproductive embryos had inadvertently impeded research into improved methods for achieving pregnancy. Key provisions in the bill are intended to improve current licensing arrangements. In reality, licences would only be given through the NHMRC on the basis of tight legislated standards. The provisions are intended to ensure that vacancies on the National Health and Medical Research Council Licensing Committee are promptly filled. They provide for the inspection of non-licensed facilities, impose significant criminal penalties for breaking the law and compel the minister to report to parliament on the establishment of a national stem cell bank and a national register of donated ART embryos.
It is important to note what this bill does not do. It does not license the creation of embryos for harvesting alone. It does not facilitate the cloning of humans. It certainly does not herald a market in embryos and eggs. Under stringent licensing, the bill allows for two new activities recommended by the expert and respected Lockhart review. The first is the use of so-called fresh embryos. These are embryos generated in the IVF process which have been deemed to be unsuitable due to genetic defects. Current legislation requires that these embryos be discarded. The bill redresses this aspect and enables their use in scientific research.
The Lockhart review also forms the basis for the recommendation of the second activity, regarding the use of human embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer and other techniques that do not involve the fertilisation of a human egg with a human sperm and not implanted into the body of a woman. They are prohibited from developing for more than 14 days. My colleague the member for Lalor points out that such embryos are to be created only for the development of specific embryonic stem cell lines, as is currently legally permitted in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Japan and Singapore. Indeed, it is this second point which has been the focal point for public discussion and debate.
In the Sydney Morning Herald, Ian Kerridge, Peter Schofield and Loane Skene point out that in the debate surrounding stem cells:
... the distinction between morality, faith, science and politics is less clear. Unfortunately, many of the arguments against legislative reform to allow therapeutic cloning rely on a series of myths.
They describe as a myth the claim that there is no scientific or medical rationale for allowing embryonic stem cell research or therapeutic cloning. They note that this claim is not accurate, that research is ongoing and that initial research on animals has yielded positive outcomes. They say:
The House of Lords, a majority of the US Senate, the American and Canadian medical associations, 80 Nobel laureates, the Australian Academy of Science and past and present Australians of the year have all supported the potential of embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning.
These are respectable sources of information that demand attention. They are not characterised by narrow bigotry or commercial self-interest. The article continues:
Myth 2: That the law does not need to be changed because scientists can already use adult stem cells and excess embryos from assisted reproductive technology.
The authors counter that the current law enables researchers to use adult stem cells but that this differs from embryonic stem cell research. Indeed, these two research areas are complementary; they are not competing. The article continues:
Myth 3: That the risks of egg donation and the possibility of women being exploited demands that therapeutic cloning be banned.
In contrast, the authors feel that safeguards against abuse are necessary but that this does not require a ban on therapeutic cloning. Women and men need to be fully informed before making the decision to donate organs or tissue. Further:
Myth 4: That allowing therapeutic cloning will ultimately lead to reproductive cloning.
A strong and transparent regulatory and licensing system is the best safeguard against any abuse. Indeed, the existing law has enabled a number of inadvertent harms in the area of reproductive technology. Regulation will provide a comprehensive framework which will enable regulatory authorities to maintain oversight over research and development. Finally:
Myth 5: That respect for human life demands cloning be banned.
The authors counter that the prevailing community attitude regarding the status of human embryos is not clear. However, there is little doubt as to the level of respect afforded to human life. The question of how much respect we afford embryos does not logically facilitate a ban on this scientific endeavour. In recent correspondence to members of this House, the Australian Academy of Science wrote:
The Academy agrees, on the basis of the expert advice of its fellows that both adult and embryonic stem cell research offer great potential in medical research. Adult stem cells from a patient have the great advantages of proven safety and the absence of immune rejection. Embryonic stem cells and their relatives made by somatic nuclear transfer (therapeutic cloning), have the great advantages of being able to make every kind of cell in the body and to multiply indefinitely. The recommendations of the Lockhart Committee will allow both adult and embryonic stem cell research to proceed in parallel to maximise the opportunity of developing medical applications from this research.
I also received correspondence from Motor Neurone Disease Australia, which asked that I support this bill. MND Australia argues that to create stem cells of a person diagnosed with MND offers the potential for advances in research that are not available through stem cells derived from other sources. We should have some recognisance of the views of people who suffer from this condition. They obviously have some focus on the matter, they obviously are very committed and they obviously see great personal advantage in these changes. MND Australia further commented:
Lifting the current ban on embryonic stem cell research will bring Australia in line with most other countries—
and they cite those I mentioned previously. The letter continues:
It will also ensure that Australian scientists and researchers have the opportunity to make future contributions to advances in this area.
In speaking to this bill, the member for Blair made the obvious point that this is a highly complex matter for which we are highly reliant on the advice of others. I was impressed by his contribution, knowing the direction from which he historically comes on these matters.
He spoke of his engagement with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and of their support for the bill. He pointed out that embryonic cloning may hold the key to finding a cure for type 1 diabetes. In defending the scientific community, the member for Blair stated:
So I hear what they—
that is, the advocates—
say. Their advice is good and unequivocal. It comes from a source that is authoritative and untainted by dogmatic ideology. There is no conflict of interest which is the fundamental problem: the credibility gap faced by scientists who are themselves engaged in alternative research.
This is not a free-for-all, as there are sentences of up to 15 years. I, for one, do not assume that scientists undertake experimentation to play God. I ascribe to a belief that there is a genuine pursuit of improvements for the health of humanity.
I turn to comments in the American medical journal Frontline by Vijay Swaminath. He inquires as to what embryonic stem cell research can do. He argues that the supply of donated tissues and organs to replace ailing or destroyed tissue is much too limited and that the demand is skyrocketing. If embryonic stem cells can be successfully directed into forming cells of specific tissues, they offer a source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injury, stroke, heart disease and diabetes.
Again I stress that I am sensitive to the perspectives expressed by people opposed to embryonic cloning. Nevertheless, I endorse this bill as I am convinced that the legislation will enable Australian scientists to work towards finding cures to diseases such as type 1 diabetes and motor neurone disease. It is not my wont to be unquestioning of prophets, but I believe that there are strong pointers to genuine progress in these matters. I am convinced that the legislation provides the proper safeguards against improper use of embryonic cells, and it is for these reasons that I support the bill.
In closing, yesterday I read an article in a Financial Review from some time ago. The article concluded that, because of the stance of the Prime Minister, this type of debate would not occur. From whichever side we are on with regard to this matter, we have to put on the record our respect for the activities of Senators Webber, Stott Despoja and Patterson and the member for Moore, who have obviously overcome a degree of reticence from the government to having the debate. Regardless of where one stands, it is good to see this kind of process happening in the parliamentary system, whereby a group of people who have a commitment to a particular issue can overcome the rigidities of parties in this House. By any international standard, political rigidities and loyalties are more intense in this parliament than we see in the United States and the United Kingdom, for instance. So I do put on the record my appreciation of the efforts of those individuals over the past few months.
12
09:44:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
0
Mr ABBOTT
—To many beyond this parliament, and perhaps to some within, scruples over human cloning and the creation of embryos for research must seem like a contemporary version of the argument over how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. Why should we bother over what is done in test tubes to a few cells when there is the potential to cure horrible diseases? We had an example of that thinking from the member for Reid a few moments ago. Indeed, listening to some of the more enthusiastic proponents of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, it is as if no cures were ever found before embryonic stem cell research and no cures ever will be found without it. But the bill is important because every single one of us began as a group of cells similar to those whose fates we now decide.
I want to make it clear that, as far as I am concerned, this debate is not about the importance of research. Everyone supports medical research and the government has demonstrated its support by pledging nearly $1 billion more for medical research in the last budget. This bill and this debate are not about finding cures because no-one in his right mind would discourage the search for new and better ways to ease suffering and prolong healthy life. Certainly this debate is not about religion; there are people who take religion seriously on both sides of the argument. This bill and this debate are about the ethical boundaries, if any, within which research should take place. I imagine that every single member of this parliament would recoil with indignation at the suggestion that he or she supported human experimentation and the use of humans as guinea pigs for science. I regret to say that the only difference between full-blown human experimentation and what is permitted in this bill is time.
The embryos and the clones that this bill permits for research are, in all material respects, indistinguishable from and every bit as human as the embryos created by assisted reproductive technology, from which some 7,000 babies are born every year in Australia. Some of these ART embryos are implanted and some are not, but they are all human embryos. The proponents of this bill claim that there is a difference between embryos created by human eggs and human sperm on the one hand and those created by somatic cell nuclear transfer on the other. Lest anyone say that this is scaremongering, let me stress that what I am about to quote comes from the official documentation of the National Health and Medical Research Council. The document says:
... somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT … was the technique used to create the first cloned mammal, ‘Dolly’ the sheep.
The NHMRC goes on to say that SCNT is controversial because:
The resulting embryo could, in theory, lead to cloned human beings. If a cloned embryo is placed into a woman’s uterus, and it implants and develops to birth, a new human being will be created whose nuclear DNA will be identical to the person who donated the original body cell.
This is not the scaremongering of the church and its more zealous supporters. This is the National Health and Medical Research Council pointing out the dismal prospect created by this bill and the slippery slope which we are now on. The proponents of this bill say that clones will never be allowed to develop beyond 14 days, but just four years ago Senator Patterson solemnly denied the slightest intention to create clones at all, so no-one can be confident that today’s absolute prohibition will not succumb to the report of yet another expert committee in four years time. The proponents of this bill claim that there is a difference between embryos created for research and embryos created for reproduction. There is a difference all right: one is created for life and the other is created for death—one is an end in itself and the other is part of what is intended to become a burgeoning human spare parts industry.
Members of this House are preparing to cross a moral Rubicon. They are preparing to jettison the axiom of Western moral thinking that the end does not justify the means because, as we have heard so often in the course of this debate, you cannot say no to people in need. Who could not be moved by the personal stories that many members have brought to this debate, but I want to point out that supporters of this bill are not the only members of this House who have experienced human suffering and they are not the only members of this House who are sensitive to it. I say that we owe it to the beloved dead to base our policy on our principles and not on our grief. I cannot say what I might want if a child of mine could be saved by cutting ethical corners. I cannot guarantee that self-preservation or the desire to protect loved ones would not get the better of my principles. That is why the actions of people under extreme pressure have never been regarded as the litmus test of what is morally right. I know the pressure that people in this House are under. I know that the unborn cannot lobby their MPs like those who are sick and their relatives. Still, as Edmund Burke said to the Electors of Bristol, ‘I owe you my judgement, not my obedience.’
I am pleased that the member for Bass has proposed an amendment to remove one of the ugliest features of this bill, and I very much hope that the proponents of this bill will consider that amendment carefully. I want to state that, for myself, this bill can be improved but it can never be made acceptable. Like the Treasurer, who preceded me, I respect the motives of those who have brought this bill forward, but I utterly reject the conclusions that they have come to. On this topic, I look forward to a future parliament with no less good will but much better judgement. This bill represents the triumph of hope over judgement and it should certainly be rejected by the parliament.
14
09:52:00
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
0
0
Mr BURKE
—I rise to oppose the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The arguments that lead me to this conclusion are in many ways different from a lot of the arguments of other people who have reached this conclusion. I also feel that a lot of the arguments from those supporting the bill do not go to the core issues as I see them in this piece of legislation.
The key argument that I have often heard from people who, like me, are opposed to this legislation is that adult stem cell research is better. I find that as an argument for opposing this bill utterly unconvincing, for one simple reason: the question of whether or not another form of research is better does not give you any justification for banning an area of research. Even if adult stem cell research were not better, that would not cause me to say, ‘Oh well, therefore we do need this one.’ I think we are in an ethical debate. That is where we are at. I think we should all be up-front that that is the debate we are in and either make the ethical case or not make the ethical case.
In the same way, I reject the argument that has been put by a lot of the proponents of this bill that under no circumstances should we stand in the way of something that might bring about a cure. The reason I reject that argument is that I do not think anyone believes it. I think there are occasions when every member of this parliament and every member of the community in Australia will say, ‘Even if that does give rise to a cure, I don’t think that sort of research should be conducted,’ or, ‘I don’t think that medical practice should be condoned.’
We have dealt with this issue through a sideways method where people have been asking where the ova will come from and whether women will be in a situation where they are being asked to sell bodily tissue. We already have, through state legislation throughout the country, a situation where under the human tissue acts of the different states it is illegal to sell your own bodily tissue. It is a principle throughout Australia and a principle that does not exist in many other countries. In the United States, for example, people get paid to give blood. In Australia we do not do that. There are no doubt situations where somebody needing a kidney transplant will die while waiting for a suitable donor to be found. I have no doubt whatsoever that there would be circumstances where, if we were allowed to sell our bodily organs, people would not die because there would be suitable donors willing to come forward. It would not happen that often but there would be such circumstances. No-one in this parliament is saying that therefore we should change our principle in Australia and make it reasonable to sell our own bodily organs. No-one is arguing that. That is an area where we say that, even if we are standing in the way of a cure, it is a public policy path we do not think we should go down.
The logic of that leads me to say that the question is not the science that is being argued back and forth. We are not the experts on the science. That is not our job. It never has been and never will be. Whatever the best course of action for science, I am quite happy for the scientists to do that bit. Our job is to determine where the boundaries ought to be drawn. To draw a boundary for the scientists is a big step to take and it is a step you do not take lightly. But, no matter what the rhetoric in this chamber has been, it is uncontested that there are times when we draw ethical lines and it is appropriate for the parliament to do that. That has been the case in statute law in this country for more than 50 years—that if we have a situation where the ethical principle is big enough, even if it stands in the way of a cure, we will say no. That does not mean people are imposing their religious faith on each other. I do not understand for a minute where the religious principle is on the question of whether or not you are allowed to sell your blood. There is none. It is a public policy stance and it is an ethical line. We look at the consequences and think it is an inappropriate path to go down.
There are two areas in which this bill crosses an ethical line that I do not believe it is appropriate for us to cross. For those reasons alone I am opposed to this bill. The first reason is that I am opposed to cloning—simple as that. I am opposed to cloning even at the earliest stages. Some people have spoken about ‘science fiction’, as though cloning is making a new human being who is absolutely identical. Essentially what we are talking about is creating an embryo with the DNA of an identical twin of an adult. Not all the genetic material precisely matches—the ovum is going to be different—but you are talking about that concept of creating an identical twin for somebody at that earliest stage of life. There is a contestable argument, which we have had in the parliament, about how much dignity life at that early stage ought to be given, but I think everybody in the debate has acknowledged, even if they do not believe you are dealing with a full person at that stage, that you are dealing with something pretty special.
The second line this bill crosses, which I do not believe it should cross, is where it is so very different to the bill that this parliament dealt with three years ago and the parallel legislation that I voted on in the New South Wales parliament three years ago. Last time around, we were dealing with the issue of whether embryos that had already been created should be allowed to be used in scientific experimentation. I was opposed even to that, but many people got to the line on that issue and argued in the parliaments around Australia—and every parliament in Australia had to deal with the legislation—that the critical issue was: these embryos have already been created anyway; they are going to die anyway; therefore it might not be inappropriate.
This time around we are saying that this embryo is only created for this purpose of experimentation. That is a really big ethical difference. It is not my argument, but some people will reach a measured conclusion that crossing that line, which is something new, is outweighed by the prospect of the blank canvas we have for scientific research. We all have to be honest: what we are faced with on embryonic stem cell research is a blank canvas. It might deliver unbelievable cures; it might deliver very little—we do not know and the scientists are not sure. For us to be engaging in this debate as to whether or not it will, I really do not think takes public policy that far. There is an ethical debate to be had, and that is where the guts of this issue really does lie.
No matter what level of dignity people want to give an embryo at that blastocyst stage, most people agree you are dealing with something more than just ordinary body tissue. The question is: at what point does it becomes special enough that you are willing to say, ‘I’m going to draw a line and not allow science to cross it.’ I believe we are at that limit—I really do. It might be the case that this is standing in the way of possible cures. It might be; neither side of the debate knows. When we prevent somebody from selling their kidney to somebody who desperately needs a matching kidney and it is completely consensual, why is it any business of ours? Because public policy is our business—that is what we do; that is what we are charged to do—and sometimes that means drawing an ethical line.
I do not believe that, even at the earliest stages, we should allow a process of cloning. I do not believe that we should allow an embryo to be created for the specific purpose of destruction. I expect we will be back debating the next stage of this in the next term of the parliament. I do not argue that from a slippery slope perspective; I argue that from two other perspectives. There are two areas where I do not understand, having taken this step, what the next logical argument of limitation is. We have the argument here that there is an absolute ban on reproductive cloning and that, once these embryos are created, it is illegal for them to be implanted in the womb and brought to term. If a woman has donated her ova and we have what people regard as either a human life or a potential human life, I do not know what argument will be used to tell the woman who is the mother—or potential mother, depending on where you sit in the debate—that, ‘Even if you want to have that embryo implanted, we’re not going to let you.’
Logically, I am not sure at what point she ceases to be the mother. I am not sure at what point she loses those rights. It is unlikely that that request is going to be made, but I am not sure, and I am yet to hear, what the logical argument is that says she has no right to make that request. Under this bill she does have no right, and I am not quite sure how that next line gets drawn when this step is taken.
The other thing that appears inevitable, because of an amendment in the Senate and a similar one in the House that say you cannot use an animal egg—and I support both of those amendments—is the problem of where the eggs are going to come from. If we end up with long lines of women volunteering to assist with this research, that will be their decision, but I would be surprised if they did. We are inevitably heading to a very specific call from scientists in three years saying: ‘You allowed us to do this. Actually, we weren’t able to do the research because we weren’t able to get the eggs to begin research with, so therefore we need to revisit the hybrid issue.’ Once again, we will be back here debating whether or not we are standing in the way of cures.
The principle that I start with will remain the same. It will still be cloning; it will still be the creation of an embryo with the purpose of destruction. We will still be in the middle not of a scientific debate but of an ethical debate. Scientists should normally be allowed pretty free rein, and I am very relaxed about that. It is not my job to be a scientist. It is not my job to decide this is the better area of scientific research, and therefore I am going to demand that other areas are shut down. That is why I do not enter this from the perspective of the adult stem cell versus embryonic stem cell debate. I can only see an ethical debate here. I think anybody who says, ‘If you want to impose ethics on science, that’s you imposing your religion on others,’ has not thought through the logic of where they stand on a whole range of other areas where we do draw lines. From my perspective we have one question and one question only in this debate: should the line be drawn? My answer is yes, which leaves me with no choice but to oppose this bill.
17
10:06:00
May, Margaret, MP
83B
McPherson
LP
1
0
Mrs MAY
—I rise today in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and hope my comments as a legislator will be understood as coming from a member who has spent many hours researching this bill and its implications. My position has not been taken lightly. I am neither a scientist nor a doctor, and the matters we as legislators have been asked to consider within this bill are complex. But the bill is important and the recommendations of the Lockhart committee’s report, a committee chaired by the late John Lockhart AO, QC, who was supported by an eminent group of people, deserve a careful and considered response.
It is my belief that the Lockhart committee’s report was comprehensive, measured and balanced. In fact, overall, it was a well-considered report. The committee reported to the minister in December 2005, noting that it had:
... consulted the community extensively through a review website, written submissions, face-to-face meetings with key stakeholders, public hearings and some private meetings (at stakeholders’ requests), facilitated stakeholder discussion forums, and selected site visits.
There was also public opinion sought through focus groups and telephone surveys, and a literature review of recent scientific and technological advances in human cloning, human embryo research and related matters, including stem cell technologies. The final report contained 54 recommendations.
Since the release of the report and the recommendations I have talked to my family, friends, constituents and those more learned than I on this issue. I have listened to varying points of view. Australia is a diverse country, and people in our country hold different values and beliefs—and none more different than those that are held with regard to this bill.
There is not the time today to canvass all those differing views. The bill we are debating today is a bill drafted by Senator Patterson. I would like to say to Senator Patterson that she has done a wonderful job in drafting a difficult piece of legislation that in essence represents the recommendations of the Lockhart review—that is, I believe it is a conservative and appropriate response to a complex medical and ethical issue.
There is one person I thought of often when I was considering this bill and my position. His name is Colin Bambrick and his body is suffering the effects of an insidious disease, a disease that is slowly destroying Col’s quality of life—motor neurone disease. Motor neurone disease is an incurable, inevitably fatal condition. I have known Col and his beautiful wife Lori for a number of years, and over those years I have watched Col deteriorate to the point where he is now in a wheelchair. His brain and intellect are fine, his sense of humour is wonderful, but his body is wasting. The disease progressively paralyses the body—the arms and legs, and swallowing and speaking muscles. Eventually you end up with a mind and a consciousness inside a body capable only of blinking before the breathing muscles give way and you die.
Col’s day-to-day needs are met by his wife, Lori, and his family. They are supported by some wonderful friends, including John and Heather Stevens—two people who I know love and respect this brave man but feel powerless to help. Col still socialises and gets out. He recently attended my niece’s 21st birthday. But socialising is difficult and tiring for Col. He is only 57 years of age and he knows there is no cure for MND. At least there is no cure at this time. But he also understands that the bill before the House today just might find that cure for sufferers in the future. He asked me recently what stage the bill had reached. I told him it had just passed in the Senate and we were waiting for it to come into the House. Col will be listening to the debate with interest, and I know I have his full support for my position with regard to the bill.
Passing this bill will not mean that embryonic stem cell research will find the cures that people like Col would benefit from. Medical research can take years, even decades, to find cures or therapies to assist. Embryonic stem cell research has, however, immense potential for understanding the cause or causes of, and eventually finding a cure or cures for, motor neurone disease and many other life-threatening diseases.
We need to promote and support all forms of scientifically and ethically reputable research. And therein lies the controversy surrounding this bill. The Lockhart review has recommended the use of human embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer and other techniques that do not involve the fertilisation of a human egg with a human sperm. Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, also known as therapeutic cloning, is an essential research tool for developing disease specific stem cells. SCNT involves creating a stem cell from a patient’s cell. Such a stem cell line would be a copy of the patient’s disease cells and would enable scientists to understand more thoroughly the triggers and process of that specific disease. It does not—I repeat, does not—involve the union of an egg and sperm and the generation of a new individual. This legislation prohibits the embryo ever being implanted. Under this bill, embryos, whether they are surplus IVF embryos or embryos created without sperm, must not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. The Australian scientific community does not support reproductive cloning. The use of SCNT to clone a human must continue to be prohibited and be a criminal offence. This bill supports that view, and so do I—very strongly.
There have been many myths perpetrated through the media regarding therapeutic cloning, and it has been difficult to cut through the rhetoric and, indeed, the moral high ground that some have taken with regard to this bill. There is no doubt some of us in this place will be criticised and targeted for our positions. But as community leaders and legislators we have a responsibility to make the tough decisions. Each of us in this conscience vote must weigh up and measure the facts against our own beliefs and values and the needs of the communities we represent.
The mix of arguments against the legislation has in part been built on myths. Of course views pertaining to morality, science, faith and politics have been thrown into the mix. So what of those myths? What of the claim that the legislation does not need to change because scientists already have access to adult stem cells and excess embryos from assisted reproductive technology for their research? That is true. However, that does not reduce the potential for scientific and medical advances from research involving embryonic stem cells. These are complementary and not competing fields of research.
Existing law allows research on excess normal embryos but does not allow the study of diseases through research into abnormal embryos or the creation of disease models for research or, potentially, for the development of patient specific therapies that may repair or regenerate diseased tissue. These require therapeutic cloning.
Concerns have been raised about the risks of egg donation and the possibility of women being exploited, and, of course, there is the claim that allowing therapeutic cloning will ultimately lead to reproductive cloning. As I said earlier, the scientific community does not support this assertion, nor does this House.
Scientific research is, at best, just amazing for a lay person like me. I think about organ donation—open-heart surgery was pioneered by Christian Barnard back in the late fifties—and measure that against what is happening in the medical sphere today. I think about young Chris Wills, a constituent of mine who underwent a heart-lung transplant last year. He is now living a normal life—even playing cricket for Australia at the recent Transplant Games in England. There is our IVF program. My own daughter is carrying my third grandchild through the miracle of IVF.
We have had many historical medical breakthroughs in my lifetime that in my view are miracles, such as the discovery of insulin by two Canadians, which has given a quality of life to all those who suffer from diabetes. Are we not to give the same sort of hope to others suffering like Col or young Perry Cross, a ventilated quadriplegic? Perry was hurt in a football accident and suffered the same injuries as Christopher Reeve. Perry is only young—in his late twenties—but has been confined to a wheelchair since he was 19. Perry has hopes that one day through medical research he will walk again, that his spine will be regenerated—and why should he not hope for that breakthrough?
We need to ensure that the recommendations of the Lockhart review are adopted and implemented. Australia has been a leader in stem cell research. The vast majority of the scientific and medical community in Australia and overseas believe that SCNT has tremendous potential to reduce human suffering. We do not want to fall behind international researchers in this area of science. As a country we need to be sharing in the international collaborations, research knowledge and intellectual property that will accompany this science.
Through this bill we can be sure that we have progressive legislation with tight regulation and a clear and well-articulated ethical framework to enable Australia to sustain our position as a world leader in biotechnology research. To Col, Perry and all those other Australians condemned to a life of suffering through their diseases or afflictions, you have my support and I hope the support of this parliament to ensure that this bill is passed.
19
10:18:00
Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP
XS4
Fremantle
ALP
0
0
Dr LAWRENCE
—I rise to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. We are often confronted in this parliament with the challenge of having to make decisions about the ethical dilemmas that surround the beginning and end of human life. In many ways, we are no better prepared than the average citizen to make these judgements, and, in a sense, that is as it should be—we represent the community. But, in that case, the responsibility in some senses is all the more onerous. We shoulder here the responsibility of deliberating on how to deal with issues that inevitably produce disparate responses in the community, in part because of differing judgements, many influenced by religious teachings, about when life can be said to begin. That is the issue which is at the crux of this debate.
There is, as far as I can discern, no real disagreement amongst us that life is inherently valuable and deserving of our diligent protection—although sometimes our actions belie that stated position. For instance, some excuse the taking of lives in war and others justify capital punishment in certain circumstances, but, generally speaking, there is consensus that each of us is unique and entitled to live our life to the fullest extent compatible with respecting the lives of others.
The reach of this recognition may not, of course, in practice extend to everyone on the planet, as is evident in the apparent indifference of some—you see images on television every night—to the deaths in, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan, to the deaths from civil strife or to the deaths from the lethal impact of poverty related diseases. We often do little in these circumstances to protect lives. But generally it is fair to say we strive energetically to preserve and protect human beings—at least those nearest to us, those we can see, those to whom we believe we owe a debt—against illness, injury and death. Of course, we sentence those who breach the injunction against injuring or taking life to condemnation, to separation from society and to extended terms of imprisonment. Where we tend to part company with one another in these debates is when questions arise, as they inevitably do in the biomedical sciences today, about the point at which life begins—the point at which our energetic defence of human life should be engaged—and, indeed, whether it is possible to identify with any precision the point when we are really dealing with an individual human being, a person, rather than a collection of cells.
I think it is worth pointing out that in these discussions there are at least two meanings of the word ‘life’ at play. In a general sense, life is the characteristic state of organisms and individual cells. The word is meant to signify the animating principle of all plants and animals. In this sense, all our cells are alive—as are viruses and fungi—both before and after conception in the case of human beings. Used in a more individual sense, life encompasses the idea that there is a point at which the developing human organism—the result of the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm—becomes more than its component cells and can justifiably be judged a human being, with all the rights to protection that a human being can expect, including the prohibition against destruction.
Those who oppose therapeutic cloning, the key subject of the legislation—and I know there are quite a number in this parliament—tend to do so because they believe that a human embryo, from its earliest stage of development, and indeed for some even from the moment of fertilisation, is an entity that deserves full protection. It is in some sense fully human, entitled to the same consideration as those of us who are already treading this earth. Such people logically oppose the termination of pregnancy at any stage. They further propose that it is morally wrong to create such an entity for any purpose other than for assisted reproductive treatment—so-called ART—of a woman, although I have to say they are strangely silent on one of the known consequences of ART: the production of surplus embryos which must, eventually, be destroyed or simply decline. Apparently the creation of excess embryos for the treatment of infertility is unique among medical treatments and the otherwise implacable opposition to the destruction of an embryo is overwhelmed in their view. I have never understood that argument. Others argue that, until the developing organism is implanted in a woman’s uterus and/or is capable of at least a degree of independent existence, it should not invoke such protection—that is, the protection accorded to human beings. There are proponents for almost every point from conception to birth for the beginning of life—and to some extent I think we all need to recognise that these judgements are somewhat arbitrary.
The proponents of therapeutic cloning argue that, given the research and therapeutic potential of the creation or use of embryos, it would actually be immoral and unethical to deny these benefits to the many people who would benefit from such technologies, particularly when such research is conducted under strict scrutiny and where cells may not be permitted to propagate beyond 14 days or be implanted in a woman’s uterus lest severe penalties apply, as is the case with this legislation.
As the Lockhart review’s authors pointed out, Australian society is made up of diverse communities with different perspectives, interests and values—much as this parliament is—which include broad support for medical research aimed at understanding, preventing or treating disease and for research and clinical practice aimed at assisting people to have children. The community generally accepts that these things can be undertaken as long as there are strong ethical frameworks and guidelines. As the Lockhart review suggests, and I agree:
... the higher the potential benefits of an activity, the greater the need for ethical objections to be of a high level and widely accepted in order to prevent that activity.
Where it can be demonstrated that substantial benefits will accrue—because of either improvements in understanding or treatment of prevalent diseases—then the scales are weighed in favour of regulated and circumscribed use of excess embryos from ART or methods of fertilising an egg other than by a sperm, by so-called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is also the subject of this legislation, especially when, as I have indicated, such processes are closely monitored and regulated as this bill proposes.
In my view, there are no absolutes here to excuse us from having to make a judgement. It does not do, in my view, to rely on divine guidance, since some of us in any case do not share those beliefs. There is no doubt that stem cell research, whether it is based on embryos or adult cells, offers considerable promise for science and the treatment of many diseases. The Australian Academy of Science, for example—the peak body representing Australia’s most eminent scientists—strongly supports the passage of this bill because they judge that embryonic stem cell research will ultimately improve the health of all Australians. They point out that adult stem cells from a patient have the great advantage of proven safety and the absence of immune rejection—important characteristics. They also stress:
Embryonic stem cells and their relatives made by somatic cell nuclear transfer—therapeutic cloning—have the great advantages of being able to make every kind of cell in the body and to multiply indefinitely.
Advances in stem cell research in both humans and animals are likely to continue to improve our understanding of how organisms develop from a single cell and how healthy cells replace adult cells in adult organisms. Such research, for example, will improve our understanding of how cell proliferation is regulated during normal embryonic development or during abnormal cell division that leads to cancer—important insights.
For example, recent research in the US, where such research is being undertaken, has discovered that colon cancer originates from rare colon cancer stem cells, a discovery that may provide the key for developing new targeted therapies which prevent the recurrence of this debilitating disease. Using mice rather than humans, researchers have discovered that vaccinating mice with embryonic stem cells can prevent lung cancer, while other scientists have successfully grown large numbers of stem cells taken from adult pigs’ healthy heart tissue and used them to repair tissue damage done by induced heart attacks. The applications to humans are obvious. Promising clinical investigations have developed a process that efficiently converts human embryonic stem cells into insulin-producing endocrine cells, a process that could provide the means of producing sufficient numbers of insulin-producing cells for transplantation into patients with type 1 diabetes—again, a significant breakthrough.
I think it is clear if you read the literature that stem cell research is already contributing to greater knowledge of how unspecialised stem cells actually give rise to specialised cells such as muscle, blood and nerve cells. What, for example, causes some cells to remain unspecialised until they are needed for repair of a specific tissue? The answers to these questions are significant, both for our understanding and for therapy. What signals, internal and external to the cell, trigger cell differentiation? Stem cell research is vital to answering these questions. And, of course, as we have heard from many speakers, it offers hope for those many people who have suffered degenerative diseases such as motor neurone disease and the like.
It is unreasonable, I think, to insist that just because some people think an activity is unethical—particularly from a belief standpoint—that activity should be rendered illegal, especially when the basis for that assertion is in a religious belief which not everybody shares. While I respect those people’s views, they are not universally compelling. Indeed, Research Australia recently surveyed public opinion—there are many such surveys, and they all pretty much find the same thing—using carefully worded questions about stem cell research, finding that 74 per cent supported the use of excess donated embryos from IVF treatment for stem cell research and 58 per cent supported therapeutic cloning for health and medical research. Only 18 per cent were opposed. As I say, I have studied the construction of such surveys, and these seem to me to be questions that were responsible in the way they were put forward. They did allow for a negative response.
Having indicated my broad support for this legislation and for the scientific benefits that should flow from it, I want to restate something I said in the debate on the earlier legislation—that is, I am not some dewy-eyed supporter of the idea of the ineluctability of scientific progress. There are enough examples of the misuse of scientific knowledge to give cause for scepticism. Generally speaking, I think we are not, as a community, sufficiently humble or sceptical about what we know. We have seen a lot of accidental outcomes from scientific process, unlooked-for consequences, so we do need to be wary. I think everyone understands the need for such regulation, and this legislation provides strong ethical guidelines and severe sanctions for anyone who breaches those standards. This is not a free-for-all that we are agreeing to here, and the research needs to be carefully monitored and regulated for the benefit of all living human beings.
I conclude by saying that I do not think there is a reason to accept that the possession of a sense of right and wrong and the capacity to make ethical judgements about these matters have any connection at all with the belief in the existence of a supernatural deity. I have always found Einstein’s views on this more compelling. He speaks in terms of ‘man’, which I think we can forgive him for, given the time at which he spoke. He said:
A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
Our sense of goodness, our ethical framework, would be the way it is with a God or without a God.
23
10:31:00
Cadman, Alan, MP
SD4
Mitchell
LP
1
0
Mr CADMAN
—Six years ago, I, with a small number of other people in this parliament, took part in an examination of the issue of human cellular research. It had become obvious to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that this was going to be a national issue and that there was a requirement for the Commonwealth to become involved in providing an overarching approach to all the aspects of human cellular research. That committee began its inquiry into what has been an issue for the parliament ever since.
One thing that occurs to me in following the debate on therapeutic cloning is the inconsistency in the scientific argument. In the early days of 2000, it was claimed that four or five stem cell lines were all that were needed for scientists to be able to do their work and to carry it through to fruition. The stem cell lines were ‘immortal’, it was said, and so the scientists had plenty of scope even if they were allowed only four or five cell lines with which to conduct their work. That claim was changed within a couple of years to one of a need to use the so-called spare embryos from the IVF program. This would give plenty of scope for Australian scientists to make world-shattering discoveries. From those spare embryos cures for all sorts of diseases could be established. That was the evidence given to the committee, and those were the statements made by some scientists during the debate on this issue in 2002.
Nine licences have been issued for the use of surplus or spare embryos, and 178 embryos have been used. There are 104,830 available embryos that have not been used. It seems to me that the scientific claim of requiring only a narrow access to embryos was not a realistic assessment. Two years later the claim changed again to a requirement of an even greater number of embryos. For some reason or another, the availability of 104,000 spare embryos is now no longer adequate for the technology of therapeutic cloning and something else needs to be tackled.
I point out to the House as we debate the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 that in this place in 2002 there were only a couple of speakers on the earlier human embryo and research bills who said that they would consider therapeutic cloning. Today the House is changing its mind and is endorsing therapeutic cloning. One must wonder where the next step will be, because the ground rules are changing and the parliament is changing with them. Now there are not enough embryos, and cloned embryos are needed because they are better, are patient specific and are therefore more likely to produce good results. Dr Washer said:
This tissue, being patient specific, does not require immunosuppressive drugs that may cause a much higher risk.
That would be true if a cell were taken from a woman and transferred into her own ova. But what about males? It does not apply for males. I am sure that Dr Washer would not want to mislead the House. I listened with care as Professor Sherley, the wonderful scientist from the United States who was in Australia recently, said that any thought that this implant process is free of contaminants and that it will make the need for immunosuppressant drugs unnecessary is not accurate. It ignores the mitochondria in the cellular plasma, and so the contamination of the fluid surrounding the nucleus is about five per cent foreign DNA in every instance. There is a 95 per cent accurate reflection, but five per cent is not. There are problems with this process, and they will come to the surface in four or five years time when we will be asked to make further changes.
So I think this process is not going to lead to therapy. It is said to be therapeutic cloning; I do not believe that it is. The inaccuracies of science are illustrated by the claims made in 2002 by Professor Trounson when he said that he felt there could be a prospect of research finding solutions for the euthanasia debate and being able to assist people such as sufferers of degenerative diseases. He said:
Maybe we can take away the absolute pain and the total loss of wanting to live on in some of these people ...
That was in 2002. One needs to have a look at what results have been achieved for the investment by the Australian taxpayer of $120 million into this research. I have carefully tried to track the process and the results from $120 million. I asked the Parliamentary Library to look for reports. The Parliamentary Library said that they came up against a barrier. Commercial-in-confidence was the barrier: ‘Go away. This is private. You don’t need to know the results.’ It is of deep concern to me that this parliament cannot find out the results of the investment in research funds because it is claimed that it is commercial-in-confidence. How do we know what is happening? How do we as a parliament know whether or not there are results being achieved?
I asked an Australian scientist to have a look at some of the publications that were put out by those who claimed to be doing this research. The ones that we were able to find amounted to reviews of other people’s work. There was no instance that I could find of original work or work of a nature that is producing advances to science. Surprisingly, in this instance, for the therapeutic cloning provision that the House is discussing today, one of the scientists who cloned Dolly the sheep opposes this change. A British scientist, Dr Alan Colman, who is now working in Singapore, said that procuring the eggs needed for therapeutic cloning poses ethical problems for him. ‘I’m not one,’ he said, ‘to slow down research, but you have to ask: is it worth pursuing with current techniques or better to wait for other techniques? Stem cell cloning is a technique that could be useful, but I think it is a bit crude and inefficient at the moment. The balance of probability of the process working against the aspect of human donors giving eggs is just not good enough.’ He was quoted in the Australian of 3 August and the Age of 7 August this year.
So there we are: one of the leading scientists in this technology saying that it is crude and that the prospect of success is just not good enough. And we have people here saying: ‘Give us the money, but we won’t tell you what the results of our research will be.’ I think that purely on science alone—forget the ethics, which I feel strongly about—we are going into this with our eyes closed, and people are asking us to take it on trust.
One only has to look at the results of the efforts in Korea, where claims of all sorts were made. The Korea cloning experience was marked by falsification to hide failure and the shocking manipulation and coercion of female researchers to produce oocytes. I think that process in Korea puts a dampener right across the whole thing, particularly in the light of the information that I have been giving the House about the lack of transparency.
The government was not prepared to back Lockhart. You can say, ‘Well, that showed the prejudice of the minister.’ I do not believe that is the case. It has come in here on a private member’s assessment of what it is. The advice to the government was doubtful, but the House is going to move ahead on its own judgement. I regret that the House has chosen to set aside previous decisions and move in this direction.
I have mentioned what happened when I tried to investigate this matter. I know that Professor John Martin tried to discover what was going on. So did the Parliamentary Library. There was no disclosure. GeneWatch in the UK had a press release in November this year titled ‘New controls needed to maintain independence of science’. What are GeneWatch saying? They say:
Research conducted by GeneWatch UK, and published this week in the Journal of Medical Ethics ... shows that scientists are failing to disclose their financial interests in the form of patents.
That needs to happen. We need to know who in Australia has a financial interest in the results of this research and whether or not the Commonwealth is backing some small group of people who hope to gain for themselves exclusive rights to Commonwealth backed research.
I mentioned the ethics of this. I know that for some members of the House, some of the proponents of this bill, the concept of a chimera does not worry them. The concept of mixing animal and human cells does not worry them. I suggest that the scientists will be back here shortly proposing that there be a relaxation in regard to animal-human mixing and that there be an extension of the 14-day period that people so fervently say they will never move on. With respect to the comments by Alan Trounson when he said in August 2002 that there would be ‘no impediment’ to the commercial use of aborted human foetuses under this legislation, a bar on that is being proposed by one of my colleagues. I hope the House accepts that bar on the use of female aborted foetuses and will accept his amendment. I believe that this legislation is dramatically flawed, but that is one area that the House surely can agree to take out.
I think that in 2006 we are making a judgement on very little evidence of advance. From what I can see, the claim of totipotency for embryonic stem cell research has not been realised. The filtering of cancer has not been realised, even though that statement has been made by people in this place—and I heard Dr Washer make the statement that Alan Trounson claims that it is possible to filter out cancerous cells from this process. Sherley said, ‘Show me the evidence.’ I have not seen a single thing printed anywhere in the world that indicates that that is the case. We are talking about a senior research scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose specific task is to work in these areas, and he has not been able to identify some of the claims that are being made—and I believe wrongly made—for the processes and the discoveries that we claim we have made in Australia.
I appeal to the House to exercise a great degree of caution in this area. I think there are things which need greater transparency and greater opportunity for this parliament to examine. On an ethical basis, at the end of the day I would oppose this anyway, but purely on the science I think there is good reason to reject this legislation.
25
10:45:00
Jenkins, Harry, MP
HH4
Scullin
ALP
0
0
Mr JENKINS
—I rise to support the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. As indicated in earlier debate, this bill amends the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 and is consistent with the recommendations made by the 2005 Lockhart legislative review committee, which followed those two pieces of legislation.
In a debate like this, where one has been given the privilege of a conscience vote, one should indicate to the House, and through the House to the community, those things which have led one to a conclusion about whether or not one supports a bill of this nature. We all bring with us different experiences. That is one of the great strengths of the Australian parliamentary system. Each of us uses those strengths from our background, our training, our life, to make considered judgements about the way in which we should act as legislators.
One of the aspects in my background which has led me to have an interest in the subject matter of this bill is that I am a science graduate. I have never used that in professional life, except as a legislator. I ended up in management positions in the Public Service, such was the want of the Public Service Board when they made appointments. Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, as the member for Fraser you would know of the great institution the Australian National University, of which I am a science graduate. Even more interesting in my background is a short time when I was a student at Monash University in a different faculty. Over 30 years ago, I managed to pass the second year subject anatomy at Monash. I did so with great difficulty, but one of the more interesting units in anatomy for me was embryology.
When I listen to some of my colleagues who have not had the benefit of the department of anatomy at Monash teaching them about these matters, I regret that they have not had that exposure. If you set out the science involved here, it explains why there is a limitation of 14 days. That is very much about the development and the way in which cells come together. If you look at the literature—and we use terminology such as ‘totipotent cells’ and ‘pluripotent cells’—you see that at day 15 the embryo has developed its primitive streak and, because of the alignment of cells, the different body parts start to develop. One of the more fascinating aspects of that development is that that is the basis of a lot of referred pain, where you get pain in a different, distinct area from an organ that is undergoing difficulty because the associated skin cells may have been from the same area of the primitive streak—but I digress a little.
I say this not because of my interest in these matters but because I understand that we all have to make an ethical judgement about whether we think what is proposed to be made legal by this piece of legislation is not just worthwhile but is proper. Earlier this morning, the member for Watson, who has come to a different conclusion from me, made some opening remarks which I thought were pertinent in that they show the way in which opposing views in this debate can overlap. This is not an argument about whether adult stem cell lines are sufficient or better. It is not about whether some scientists, as the member for Mitchell has talked about, have been caught out for having poor ethics in their practices. They are decisions for the profession to handle, to make sure that members of their profession act in an appropriate way. This bill gives the legislative framework that dictates what can be done with the stem cell lines that are extracted from the embryos that will be created by means of therapeutic cloning.
I am not going to go further into the technology. We have heard many people describe the elements of somatic cell nuclear transfer, and I think it is for the scientists to decide whether or not that is a successful technique. The Lockhart review indicates that, beyond the surplus embryos created for the purposes of in-vitro fertilisation, there really is a need to continue and to widen the potential for the creation of stem cell lines because the therapeutic benefits might include the ‘treatment of serious and currently untreatable conditions, studying disease states, and screening new drugs’. It is not surprising that since the 2002 legislation there have been only eight or nine instances where requests for approval for the use of surplus IVF embryos have been made and that now, after a thorough discussion of these issues by the Lockhart committee, we should be going to this step of creating embryos for the purposes of further study. There is the potential for studying so-called patient-matched cells for specific patient cell therapies but also for more certainty about studying known genotypes for disease modelling and other research.
One aspect of my background that I have tried not to dwell on in coming to the position that I have in this debate is that my late father suffered from motor neurone disease. Regrettably, or fortunately, he had a slower degenerative version of that disease and had been diagnosed for over 25 years. In that time span you can see the effect of a disease that is all about the motor neurones dying because they cannot be regenerated, leading to the wasting of muscle and mobility problems. But it is not because I witnessed that degenerative disease that I come to the conclusion that this gives hope and might lead to a cure; I think we have to be a little dispassionate.
This morning, even worse for me—and a subject that is much closer to home and more recent—the member for Fremantle mentioned the possibility of this type of technology being used to find remedies for bowel cancer. Again, this is something that is of moment for the Jenkins family. But I think we have to step aside from that and say—as the Minister for Health and Ageing quite rightly said—that it is not just for the people who have decided they can support this bill. Many of those who are actively in opposition will have experienced through relatives or friends the types of diseases about which claims have been made this type of technology may eventually assist. It is very much ‘may’; there is nothing definite.
Whilst we talk about the great changes in science—and we are trying to react to those great changes through this legislation—nothing can be guaranteed. Some have mentioned in debate the discussion that happens in the scientific world about whether or not one particular person’s view is correct, but that is the nature of science and has been throughout history. That is why, if we as legislators are concerned, we have to set out the parameters through legislation like this to ensure that it is done in a way in which we think the community will sufficiently allow.
When debating the 2002 bill, because it was correct of the 2002 legislation, I made the comment that that bill did not allow for the creation of embryos solely for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research and the development of embryonic stem cell lines. That was the position at that point in time. I believe that what we have seen through the Lockhart committee’s review and recommendations is a logical step based on sound scientific principles but not, I think, stretching the boundaries of what the parliament decided with the 2002 bill.
One thing is clear—and I think I can talk for both houses of this parliament: the members and senators of this parliament are unanimously opposed to any notion of the development of a full adult human through cloning. To suggest that this is the thin edge of the wedge, the slippery slope, does not take into account that those who are supporting the bill do so in the knowledge that this legislation is very specific about the use of those embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer, that the regulations dictate the hurdles that are required for researchers who want to use this method and that there are very severe penalties for those who would want to do other things.
The ethics of science has been paramount throughout civilisation. For every scientific step forward, consideration has to be given to the ethical value of that step. Mention has been made of the splitting of the atom, its use in the manufacture of nuclear weapons and things like that and the dilemmas it has raised. In the middle of last century the knowledge that had been developed by the science of genetics was abused by fascist states in attempting to foster the development of a super race, but the scientists who were involved in that are not the sort of people this legislation is developing opportunities for; they would be outside the legislation. People with those types of morals are well outside the intent of this legislation.
So on balance, after consideration of the views put to me by a wide range of people from within and without my electorate, I have come to the view that this legislation would allow another item in the toolkit of researchers that may lead to solutions to medical problems. It may not. Science may move on, and these types of mechanisms may not have to be used. The notion that stem cells could be extracted from an embryo without damaging the embryo, which could then go to full term, would make aspects of this legislation redundant. But the use of SCNT technology may still require a known genotype through a stem cell line.
I want to speak—but not in a patronising way—about the quality of this debate. This debate is one instance where the parliament as an institution has worked well. The executive, in response to the Lockhart review—this is not a dig at them—decided that they would not pursue this matter. But the press statement, in announcing that, indicated that the government parties would allow a discussion to take place. That opened the door for members of the government parties to explore this issue. Then we saw senators from across the board—from the opposition parties and from other third parties—come together to assist Senator Patterson in the sponsorship of this bill. It then came before this House with a conscience vote. That is in its purest form one of the best ways we can see the parliament in action. It not only allows those non-executive members of the government parties an opportunity to pursue things that are important to them but allows the parliament as a whole to do so.
I support this bill. I know that those who oppose it do so for heartfelt reasons. I believe that when we put in place the mirror state legislation which will control the uses of this technology, it will be done in an appropriate manner.
28
11:03:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
0
Dr NELSON
—Amidst all else that is clamouring for media attention this week is this bill, which presents to the parliament a watershed decision. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 represents a significant milestone in the delivery of confidence and hope and indeed uncertainty for the future. The question before us is: should Australia allow its researchers to undertake somatic cell nuclear transfer, known commonly as therapeutic cloning? Embryonic stem cells are created from fertilised eggs that are surplus to those needed after IVF treatment. This is currently allowed, the eggs being donated by the couples who produce them, and those that are not so used are discarded. In effect, in discarding them, they are destroyed. This is considered to be morally repugnant by many.
Removing the nucleus from an unfertilised egg and replacing it with the nucleus from another tissue cell can also produce embryonic stem cells. The advantage of producing embryonic master stem cells in this way is that they have identical genetic material to the person who donated the cell, and tissue ultimately produced by such research is not likely to be rejected when it is subsequently transplanted. We will not know until the research is conducted and it is evaluated. The potential to produce disease-specific stem cells tailored for an individual offers significant opportunities for the treatment of a range of diseases.
In the course of the debate a number of those who oppose the bill have argued that, if we accept the embryos to exist for up to 14 days now, subsequently we would be on a slippery slope, as it is described, and the parliament may choose to lengthen the period of time for which an embryo could be produced and then exist and have harvested from it embryonic stem cells. Others have gone further to suggest that an embryo produced in such a way could subsequently be implanted into a uterus and produce a human being.
To go back to some of the remarks made by the member for Scullin, if anything, the science in this area is moving in the direction of reducing the period of 14 days. It will be a judgement for any parliament to decide on any matter at any time whether it extends or shortens that period. There is no scientific argument, nor indeed any moral or ethical argument that I can foresee, for extending it beyond the 14 days, although at this stage that period of time is necessary. The fact is that it is also illegal and will remain illegal to subsequently implant an embryo produced in this way.
There has also been some talk about cloning people and animal-human hybrids, about so-called Frankenstein science. Apart from the appalling ethics of such research, it is illegal to do it and it will remain so. Others have brought exaggerated claims about the potential of embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research to the debate. It is important that we appreciate that adult stem cell research does offer hope and potential, but it is complementary to embryonic stem cell research. Opposition to therapeutic cloning on the grounds of religious conviction is to be both respected and admired. Others oppose this research on the basis that ‘no cure has yet come from therapeutic cloning’. It is also said by some that it offers false hope.
When insulin was introduced into Australia, one critic reported in the Medical Journal of Australia:
Public propaganda had been used to build false expectations and no doubt hundreds of diabetics would be hastened to their graves.
It is a matter of record that, today, 130,000 Australian juvenile diabetics owe their lives to insulin. Smallpox vaccination, blood transfusion, organ transplantation, analgesics and oral medicines have all, at various times, evoked religious and moral opposition. I note that some of those who have been most strident in their opposition to the introduction of a number of those things have been amongst the early recipients of the benefits of such medical technology and medical change.
Hope is the most fragile yet powerful of human emotions—there is no such thing as false hope; there is only hope. My mother lost one of her two sons to a chronic disease a little over a decade ago. He lived the last two years of his life inspired and energised by what would ultimately be the quixotic search for a cure. Two of my constituents, Carol and Ray Langsford, watched their young, beautiful daughter die in a Wahroonga nursing home from multiple sclerosis. I visited her on a number of occasions in that small nursing home room. She was in her mid-20s. The hope that others may one day not similarly suffer sustains Ray and Carol Langsford in a campaign which has subsequently raised more than $1 million for research into the prevention and treatment of multiple sclerosis. My grandfather died earlier this year at the age of 91. After almost a century of life, he still carried the photograph of a much loved daughter taken from him at the age of 3½. Today, that cancer’s treatment is routine. We are all haunted by these sorts of experiences in the knowledge that such diseases are now treatable and preventable.
I think some of those who are a little overenthusiastic to support this legislation need to listen very carefully to those who are opposed to it, because the science is hard—in fact, the science is very hard. But what is much more difficult and much more important is how we as human beings come to terms with living with that science in vast ignorance of the long-term consequences of the decisions that we make. The real challenge is how we as human beings adjust to new knowledge and how we ensure that our ethical and moral considerations of the impact of new science does not undermine the very principles for which a civilised society actually stands.
I consider myself a Catholic, albeit a far from perfect one. But, as with Edmund Burke, I am here to be a representative, not a delegate, whether it is of my electorate or indeed of my own religious conviction. I recall my grandmother dying over a two-month period when I was a young boy. There was a priest at her bedside almost every day of that 60-day period. She derived enormous comfort from his presence and from the prayers, the rosary beads and all of the symbols which are convictions of the faith she passed on to me through her daughter, who is my mother. But throughout my life I have often thought that through that quiet introspection—the deep, silent, secret pursuit of understanding and wisdom through prayer—we ultimately have a responsibility to translate that prayer that inspires hope into something which may be practical.
In a climate of moral diversity—one in which we live in vast ignorance of the consequences of the decisions that we make—I will support this bill. My generation—I think at times a selfish generation—has benefited enormously from the sacrifices, scientific endurance and judgement of those who pioneered not only difficult research but also legislative frontiers. We owe it to the next generation no less to show the same wisdom and indeed the same courage.
30
11:13:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—We have had the privilege to listen to very good contributions on both sides of this debate. It has been a very impressive, quality debate with people making strong, powerful and compelling arguments on both sides of this issue. This has led to people talking about the significance of conscience votes and the role of political parties. For my own part, I have no fear about conscience votes—I think there are certainly occasions when they are appropriate and they add value to the parliament and to the broader community. You can seek to run a parliament on the basis of conscience votes for legislation; however, you cannot run a government without political parties. Governments need to be able to govern and to be confident about their legislative framework and the operation of their legislative mandate.
Let me commence by saying that I think the less intrusion we have of religious convictions into our political and legal systems the better. One of the greatest challenges we face in our time is the challenge of religious fundamentalism. But the fact that I do not believe that our law should be shaped by people’s religious views does not mean that there are no moral or ethical issues at stake here or that without religion it is open slather and scientists can do whatever they like.
Today we are debating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. This is an amendment bill to legislation that we passed just four years ago, which is very recently indeed in the grand sweep of history. Back then, the House said that we would allow stem cell research in relation to embryos which were going to be destroyed anyway, but the House was adamant that we would not allow cloning. Members lined up to denounce this idea. Now we say that we are going to allow cloning for research purposes though not for reproduction. So what has changed in four years to warrant the parliament moving so quickly to overturn a position arrived at unanimously so recently? In my view, not enough. It is said that the research world is moving quickly, and it is, but it is not moving so quickly that the research carried out has actually given us any cures. Precisely because it is moving quickly, no-one is able to stand up in this place and say that adult stem cell research will not prove efficacious in the years ahead. We simply do not know what is around the corner.
If you look at the Patterson bill before us, it says that under no circumstances can a human embryo or a human embryo clone be kept outside the body of a woman for ART or research purposes beyond 14 days. The period of 14 days is counted from the first mitotic division but does not include any time that the embryo’s development is suspended while frozen in storage. This has compromise written all over it. Why stop at 14 days? Why have any stopping point at all? The only reason there can be for a stopping point is that the proposers know that there is something unsatisfactory about the process. What other reason can there be? If there is nothing wrong with it, why stop at 14 days and why does it matter whether the embryo is frozen at the time or not?
I have been around for some time. I remember the IVF debate. The advocates at the time said, ‘IVF, yes; cloning, no.’ I accepted that argument. I also remember the embryo stem cell research debate four years ago. The advocates of embryo stem cell research said at that time, ‘Excess embryos, yes; cloning, no.’ I also accepted this argument. Now they show up saying: ‘We’ve changed our mind about cloning. We want to finesse that ban we put in place to allay your concerns before. We don’t want a ban any more.’ From my point of view, I am not convinced. The protections which were put in place against abuse before were very important and very basic protections. It may be that the time will come when they should be removed, but, in my view, we are not there yet.
There is something known as the precautionary principle which operates in science. It is my view that we are crossing a line here. It is a very big call to make and I personally am not prepared to make it. No-one knows whether adult stem cell research or embryo stem cell research will ultimately prove effective or which will work better. The member for Calare suggested that hopes of cures have been deliberately talked up. I also noted the comments of the member for Prospect that four years is a very short time for us to propose such a dramatic change. This is an on-balance judgement about an extraordinarily complex issue, but it seems clear enough to me that some violence is being done to some entity here. The sponsors of the bill effectively concede as much. Why else would we have the 14-day rule?
They might respond that the violence is justified in the name of research and the search for cures, and so we have the talk of therapeutic cloning as opposed to cloning for reproduction, but is the violence justified in the name of seeking a cure? The evidence is far from clear that it does work or that adult stem cell research does not work. We live in a fast-moving research world and therefore I think the precautionary principle is appropriate here. I did not oppose IVF. I did not oppose the embryo stem cell research on spare or excess embryos. I recall that the Prime Minister said in that debate:
... I could not find a sufficiently compelling moral difference between allowing a surplus embryo to succumb by exposure to room temperature, on the one hand, and the use of those embryos for potentially therapeutic research, on the other.
That is the view which I adopted at that time. I do not say that there are no circumstances in which I would support embryo stem cell research, but I will not support this bill at this time.
32
11:20:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
0
Mr BILLSON
—The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 before us today is a personal challenge surrounded by strong feelings and, some would say, even controversy. No matter what we finally decide, we need to reflect on our conscience and our motives when we make these decisions on behalf of our community and reflect the best we have to offer in ourselves. It is on that basis that, on balance, I will be supporting this bill.
I support this bill for a range of reasons, many of which stem from the statements I made in 2002 when this matter first came before the parliament. At that time, I had just been on quite a journey with my friend and colleague Kevin Andrews. We were on the House of Representatives Standing Committee for Legal and Constitutional Affairs and we travelled far and wide across the country canvassing these themes and looking at the moral, ethical, regulatory, health and human aspiration virtues and arguments surrounding this whole area of medical research. We travelled far and wide and we heard many points of view and at times the arguments put forward were quite irreconcilable. The basis on which they had been developed was for some drawn from their faith or strong convictions and for others more of a utilitarian view of the good that could come out of this work if it was supported and regulated properly to guard against excesses.
My strong support for the earlier legislation is clear, and the reasons for it I will not go over other than to say that at times in some of my work I was partnered by Con Sciacca. We were not quite the odd couple but an unexpected alliance. We moved the measures to split the legislation. At that time my strong view was that there was almost a contradiction of conscience embedded in the one bill and that people should be given an opportunity not only to vote against the notion of human cloning but to vote equally thoughtfully on the other element, which was stem cell research. That was achieved, we had the passage of the bill and then it was reassembled and became the legislation that we are seeking to amend today.
I do not see this debate as a contest between the virtues and the possibilities of different forms of research. I am optimistic every day that new insights will be gained from a whole range of human endeavour and enterprise, whether it be adult stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research or the other kinds of medical research that go on every day in this country and in other parts of the world. I am interested in what it is trying to achieve and whether there are safeguards against excesses or a rampant enterprise in research which loses focus and which moves away from healing and life giving into something else. This is why I am supportive of Senator Patterson’s amendments, and I commend her for her work.
Many of the debates that we have had in this place reflect on the earlier discussion, but for me the safeguards embedded in the bill we are discussing mean that it is within our reach to carry out embryonic stem cell research in a safe and thoughtful way. The insights that it may offer, the remedies and therapies that it may produce and the benefit that it offers to all humankind deserve the possibility and the opportunity, and we should, within certain boundaries and certain constraints, support that work.
There have been discussions around the time limit of 14 days, there have been discussions around the use of an egg, there have been discussions around somatic stem cells and there have been discussions around inputs or steps along the way to conception and the creation of a new being. Some of the arguments have centred on a view that if you have elements of that process then that amounts to the total outcome: a conscious, functioning being with a whole world of possibilities ahead of them. That discussion often misses or leaves to one side the many steps that are required to get to that point. I am thinking about the efforts of many families around the country to have children and their frustration that their best endeavours do not always produce the results. It is a complex process and there are many things that need to go well and right to produce the foundations for a viable human life with all of the consciousness and personality and possibility. At some point in that process, well before all those preconditions have been met, there is scope for us to carry out some research. The benefits of that are health giving and life sustaining for people. You could argue that it is a life-giving enterprise. The safeguards against the misuse of that technology are embedded in the bill. I am particularly interested in the steps, which I was strongly supportive of, to guard against commercialisation and the prospect of women being offered financial inducement to provide eggs to support this research. I am pleased that there are safeguards in place against that.
I am encouraged by the work the Lockhart review committee has brought forward. I think their thoughtful review gives us confidence in supporting Senator Patterson’s bill. This is not to say that tomorrow there will be cures for horrendous illnesses that represent an enormous challenge for the people who carry those illnesses. This is not to say that tomorrow there will be relief for the selfless carers who stand by supporting those people. That is not what we are discussing. This bill is about providing an opportunity down the track for new insights produced with the best of all goodwill and the best enterprise that minds can bring and research can offer. It is the same opportunity that advocates of adult stem cell research offer. It is not a fait accompli that we will have the benefits tomorrow, but it is not appropriate to shut off that possibility when the safeguards and the thought that has gone into this bill are in place. I am persuaded by the Lockhart review committee and their work. They are an eminent panel of people and their eminence has not been in question. Their expertise was aggregated into an outstanding group of individuals, motivated by the best intentions, carrying out important work to help shape our decision making.
I do not for one minute discount the strength of feeling people have about this subject. I have taken that on board and welcomed the input from many in my electorate. It has helped shape and influence my views. But there are two things that I want to talk about. When I travel around the electorate I often talk about what a member of parliament does, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, and at times I reflect on some of the work that you and I have done together on standing committees. I talk about the work that the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs did when looking at this issue of cloning, the regulatory framework and the prospects for embryonic stem cell research, and how the parliament came together to carry out that work through a parliamentary committee. I use that example to illustrate how we all come together to do good for this country.
When I visit schools I illustrate the complexity of our work by reflecting on that time. It was a demanding time of great searching, and I was almost overwhelmed by the goodwill and effort that people put into informing our work and by the quality of the final product. Even though our views were slightly different, it was an example of the parliament functioning at its best. I illustrate the potential for the parliament to function by reflecting on the topic we are debating today.
Occasionally amongst the school groups there is a young person with diabetes. We talk about the condition of their pancreas and we hope that one day we could cure that. There is a strong view that that is an appropriate thing to do. We then pick out a normally raucous and boisterous and terrific young person and say, ‘We all love and admired Duncan for who he is,’ and everyone nods their heads, ‘but would we want another one of him?’ Pretty quickly they all go, ‘No, we’re pretty fond of him, but we don’t want him again.’
You talk that through and the kids can see these challenges where the scientific processes are close to each other but the outcomes are distinctly different. There is clarity about our work to help and heal those people where we have the scope to do that and that research is an important part of that, but we are not aiming to replicate Duncan, as fond as we may be of him. The kids see that quite clearly, and so do I. I look at my own kids and hope that, as they venture into this world and pursue the delicious possibilities that are out there, we can do what we can to help them if, heaven forbid, illness may intercept them. This is what I am on about. I got elected to public life to try to improve the lives of the people that I represent. I am in the hope business—hope that we can offer better prospects for the future, more opportunities and better potential for the best possible quality of life. That is what gets me out of bed each day, and that is why I am supporting this bill.
I have also been moved by correspondence from Phyllis Woodger, who talked about her dear husband, Ken. Phyllis might not realise it, but I worked with Ken. He was a mentor when I had my first job after leaving school. While I was out emptying parking meters in the rain in Frankston, Ken was a respected engineer at Frankston City Council. He spent a lot of time developing my understanding of engineering and of where that fit within functioning communities. Ken was very ill, and passed away not so long ago. I would like to share with the House Phyllis’s thoughts. She asked me to consider them as I formed my view on the debate today, and I will read her letter. She says:
I have been following the current debate on stem cell research closely, and I am very anxious to see the Lockhart Report implemented so that Australian researchers and scientist are allowed to participate in the new beneficial work in this field.
Just 12 months ago my husband Ken (aged 65 years) died from Motor Neurone Disease—the years prior to this death were a nightmare for Ken and our whole extended family.
The hope for people suffering from many incurable terminal conditions is stem cell therapy and I feel it is imperative that every effort be made here and overseas to give relief to families and sufferers.
I hope that in the forthcoming conscience vote you will think of people like Ken and vote accordingly.
Phyllis, I do think of Ken. I think of all of those who have benefited from medical and scientific research to help our wellness as a people, and this is part of that picture with the appropriate safeguards. I also know that if this research, whether or not it is carried out here under our supervision and on our watch, produces insights that help with curing illnesses and improving our wellbeing, I would like to have access to it and I hope my kids do. If those insights are gained overseas, I would still like to have access to them. Australia has never been a passenger in life or in international affairs. We should play our part in the search for those remedies and therapies because I know the people I represent will want to benefit from them. It is for that reason that I, on balance, support the bill. I congratulate Senator Patterson for her work, and I congratulate the parliament too for the way it has discussed and deliberated views on this matter.
35
11:33:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—I am very amused listening to the people who are advocating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, such as the last speaker, the member for Dunkley. There is a wonderful quote at the end of the movie Young Einstein, where Young Einstein says: ‘This is very scary, this e=mc². We’ll have to give it to the government, because only the government could be trusted not to use it for evil purposes.’ There are scenes in the background of hydrogen explosions taking place, which are seen by the audience. That was the image that leapt to my mind when I heard the cant hypocrisy and extreme intellectual featherweight material we have heard continuously today.
We have had a lot of people acting very pious, and in the rough country where I come from there is a great saying that when your neighbour starts preaching religion, that is when you start reaching for your branding iron. That is what I was thinking about today when we had them all telling us we are really safe with this embryonic research and saying, ‘I’m doing it because I believe in my country and because it’ll save the world.’
It is very interesting to look at the English language from some 25 years ago and to look at it today. The generation that I belong to, those who thought about things and read about things, read two books—Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World. They represented the great fear syndrome that a thinking person could clearly see arising. If you cast your mind back, in Nineteen Eighty-Four the world was divided up into Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia, and it has actually taken place today with NAFTA and the European Union. Those things are all reality.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government is all-powerful—Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill had an awful lot to say about excessive government and the tyranny of the majority and just how excessive government would be in a democracy—and in taking the story to its conclusion, a lot of words from the book have become part of the English language. ‘Orwellian spectre’ is a term you often hear used and you will often read, and it refers to George Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four we had the word ‘doublethink’—you actually had to believe what the government was telling you—and we had ‘doublespeak’, which meant that the word actually meant the opposite of what it was supposed to mean or in fact we just simply created a new meaning for the word. Here, what was ‘embryonic cloning’ is now ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’. To quote from an article I have here from Nature magazine:
The word ‘embryonic cloning’ has negative connotations and therefore we should change the name.
The word ‘homosexual’ was deleted—and that is fair enough—but they took the word ‘gay’. I remember getting an A for senior English. They said language creates an image. One of the best images in the English language was in the famous poem, Rape of the Lock, where:
Belinda smiled, and all the World was gay.
It conjured up a very graphic and wonderful image that leapt to your mind—and a very clear image. But, of course, that word was taken by homosexual people to describe themselves—they were to rebadge themselves: ‘We’re all gay people. That is really wonderful.’ As I say, they are free to change their name, but they should not be free to take a wonderful word from the English language and pervert it to their own selfish ends.
I still use the terms ‘madam chairman’ or ‘chairman’, whatever the case may be, but now of course it is ‘chairperson’. I am just wondering how long before a ‘person’ becomes a ‘perdaughter’! Clearly this must be where this ridiculousness ends up. No-one ever thought because you were a chairman you were automatically a man.
I have dealt lightly about these things, but movies, some of them described as horror movies—Brave New World, Blade Runner, Frankenstein—reflect a fear element in our psyche that has been tapped by Hollywood on many occasions. We are frightened of the mad doctor syndrome—Jekyll and Hyde, if you like, or Frankenstein’s monster, which is more pertinent to this debate. We are scared of it and quite rightly scared as human beings of the sort of ‘brave new world’ where clones are created as servants to the powerful classes and we have various strata of society cloned to meet the needs of the marketplace.
I do not mind people in this debate stretching the truth, but I really do get a little bit upset in this place sometimes. The only occasion when my honourable colleague, the member for New England, asked me to leave was an occasion when the debate was going fine and the other side were having their say about something we disagreed violently with. But when they started telling lies I got very angry.
Today, speaker after speaker has told us that this embryo, which they choose to call a ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer product’ will not become a human being. That is what they have said. There is not one single scientific resource that I have been able to access that does not say that that will happen, albeit many will fall by the wayside. But if you put A with B you will end up with a human being, so long as something does not destroy it along the way. When you say, ‘This will not create a human being,’ the substance of what you are saying is a flagrant lie. Dolly was created from this technology. They set out to create a sheep and they created a sheep. It just so happened in this case that the sheep died soon afterwards because of the imperfections that were involved in what was being done.
If you put A and B together here you will get a human being, albeit that a lot of these embryonic stem cells might die along the way. But all of us start life as little human beings and very few of us reach 95, because we die along the way. But when we start off as a human being we still hope that we end up as a human being. Everybody knows that we will end up as a human being. Similarly, here, this embryo starts as an embryonic human being and it will end up as a human being. It may be that there are a lot of things that kill it along the way, but similarly with the human as it emerges from its mother. They are telling lies when they say, ‘This is not creating a human being.’
The second lie that they have constantly perpetrated in this parliament is that there is no other option. If you use an embryonic stem cell it is pluripotent—it does not have a very definitive DNA template stamp upon it. It may become anything. It may become rogue cells or cancer. It is on its way to being a human being, but we do not know what side track it may take, because of the way that it has been formed. We do not know that. That is why they say to us; ‘We want to have embryonic stem cells, because it is not DNA definitive.’ If that is the case, why can’t you use animal stem cells? If that is your argument—that it is not distinctively delineating and DNA templating—then why can’t you use animal cells that are also not distinctively DNA templating and delineating? So it is a lie to say they have no other alternatives.
If the DNA determination and delineation or templating—or nonpluripotent or whatever expression you want to use—is the reality then you can use adult stem cells. So to say that there is no other option is nothing more than a lie.
But I thought what was extremely distasteful was speakers in this place getting up and using heartbreak arguments about some person dying from a terrible disease. In other words, all the people opposing this bill are dastardly people who want to see these poor people continue to die these terrible deaths and somehow we have some spiritual belief system that obviates scientific objectivity.
Those of us who do have some spiritual beliefs are getting a little sick and tired of this sort of rubbish coming from people. Every time we assert a non-personal, non-self belief—or whatever term you want to use—we are accused of being antiscience and off in fairytale land. I would have thought the idea of an ‘uncaused cause-god’, if you like, is a hell of a lot more logical than saying, ‘All of this descended from a firecracker going off some time in the past.’ And that is the proposition that is put forward continuously by our opponents in this area.
For those that like to read a little bit of history, I have this to say. When I was down and out for three months I did a lot of reading. There were three books that categorised what they termed the most important people in human history, and there were two other books that defined the greatest breakthroughs in science and the greatest scientists. But on each of those lists, whether it was the greatest person, greatest scientific breakthroughs or greatest scientist, were Voltaire, the father of electricity; Galileo, the father of science; Mendel, the father of genetics and biology; Einstein, the father of nuclear science; and Pasteur, often referred to as the greatest man in history. I think Pasteur came in fourth on the register of whom they consider to be the greatest man in history, but he will often come in at the top of the list of the greatest scientists in human history.
Each of these men is defined as having made the modern scientific world, and each of them unashamedly asserted spiritual beliefs—beliefs beyond what our opponents would call the scientific realm. These were the world’s greatest scientists. In comparison, Robyn Williams, a champion of our opponents, is an intellectual and scientific pygmy of enormous proportions. You would need a microscope to find him if you were doing a scientific analysis and putting him beside these giants.
Voltaire said that if there was no god then you would have to invent one. Galileo, of course, was tortured by the Christianity of the day. There were no different religions then; there was only the Christian religion in those days. He was tortured by certain people undoubtedly associated with the Christian church of the day. But he only existed as a scientist because the de Medici family had financed him; they were his patrons. In fact, they had been his mentors, and he only existed as a scientist because of the de Medici family, who were the papacy in Rome for those same 50 years. So I would hardly use Galileo as part of the argument.
Einstein said: ‘I want to know God’s thought. The rest is detail.’ Mendel, of course, was a monk. He lived in a monastery. He was a religious. After Pasteur made his discovery and saved many lives—probably one in four of us would not be here now if it was not for Pasteur, his inoculations and his breakthroughs—people asked, ‘What mountains do you have left to climb?’ and he said, ‘My greatest ambition has not yet been achieved, and that is to achieve the simple Christian faith of a Breton fisherwoman.’ So here were the giants of science, and the other side of this argument continuously disparage us with their nonspecific but continuous attack that we somehow have emotional and spiritual attachments that are not logical or objective. So listen to what the great scientists of history say.
In conclusion, there are beliefs that have sanctions. The Hindu religion says that you cannot kill a cow, and there are very good reasons for a society to ban the killing of the cow. The cow is your tractor in a poor country. The cow is source of calves in a poor country. So the tractor factory is the cow. The tractor factory is also the food factory, the source of milk and meat—food. The killing of the cow was the original sanction. Our own first Australian people had debil-debil country. Let us have a look at that debil-debil country. Black Mountain, out the back of Cooktown, is alive with poisonous snakes. The reason it was debil-debil country was that if you went up there you had a very good chance of dying. The Quinkans that come out of Mount Fox and spear you are obviously a reference to the volcanic era of about 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. These sanctions were there to prevent people from going into a situation which was extremely dangerous for the survival of the race. At Ingham, they have the water from mountain to mountain from double floods in the upper and lower Herbert. The entire coastal plain would go under water, so it was a debil-debil area as well.
So what I am saying is that, in human history, we have built our belief systems around certain survival elements that we need—certain beliefs which are relevant to the survival of us as a race of people. One of those things built in is that mad scientists cannot go running around creating humans for their own nefarious purposes. Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the motivation for so many things is money. As my worthy colleague the member for Calare said in this place concerning the debate on this previously, the appeal of creating humans for the sake of meeting market demands does not appeal to me. I think those are the reasons intelligent people would shy very much away from the proposal that is being put forward to the House.
There are those that say the protections that are built into this act are going to protect it. But you will see incremental change. We will be back in this place saying that the 14 days should be extended to a month, then to two months and then to six months. You can absolutely count on that incremental change taking place there. Every time, the arguments that will be put up will be exactly the same as the arguments that have been put up to date. They would have some veracity—except that underlying each of the major arguments here is a lie: (1) that these embryos will not become human beings, and (2) that there are no other options. Of course there are other options in carrying out this research. I will most be certainly opposing the bill.
39
11:53:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
0
Mr NEVILLE
—Moral courage is an integral part of leadership. You cannot have one without the other. You cannot hope to exercise any form of leadership or authority if you are not prepared to stand by your convictions. We have been in this very position before. This parliament debated, in 2002, the Research Involving Embryos Bill and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill. Note the words ‘prohibition of human cloning’. In fact, at the time the Minister for Health and Ageing, who moved this private member’s bill, said:
I believe strongly that it is wrong to create human embryos solely for research. It is not morally permissible to develop an embryo with the intent of truncating it at an early stage for the benefit of another human being.
In 2002 the House voted overwhelmingly along that very line. Yet the bill before us today seeks to overturn the result of that vote, and I will have no part of it. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 implements the recommendation of last year’s Lockhart review, which found that research using cloned human embryos may offer the possibility of cures for a number of debilitating conditions. Let me say from the outset that I have tremendous sympathy and compassion for those who live with incapacitating illnesses and those who see this legislation as a possible salvation from such diseases and conditions. But I urge those people to consider the grand scheme of things, look beyond the immediate suffering and think about the door we are about to unlock. This amendment will be giving scientists the go-ahead to clone human embryos on the pretext that stem cells from these embryos will offer scientific advances that would not otherwise occur.
It is interesting that the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, which is barely 18 months old and to which Australia is a signatory, calls in part for ‘all measures necessary to prohibit all forms of human cloning’. I am surprised that many members of this House who are such devotees of the United Nations and its declarations are supporting this amendment. Of them I ask: where is your consistency?
Of course, if we open this Pandora’s box, I am sure we will rue the day we ever opened it because it will permit, in a de facto sense, the establishment of a slippery slope. The member for Kennedy made that very point. This bill provides that embryos may only be used in the first 14 days. How long before it is 28 days, or 42 days, or a number of months? Then what next? I remind honourable members that this bill already permits hybrid embryos. Sure, it is for the testing of sperm—it allows an animal egg and a human sperm. It is for testing the quality of sperm. But what happens next? What else can you do? Or do we keep going down this path until we get to Professor Singer’s ultimate aim? He is a so-called ethicist who would virtually approve the removal of children in their earliest form.
I appreciate the difficulty in grappling with an issue like cloning of embryonic stem cells but I also have an unshakeable view on the sanctity of human life and the heavy responsibility upon us as legislators to get this right. In extending my compassion to those who are suffering today, I ask: what sort of legacy are we handing to future generations? The Lockhart report contained one particular line which I feel undermines our position as federal representatives:
... the wider the range of ethical views on a particular activity, the weaker becomes the case for declaring that activity to be illegal, with all the attendant consequences of criminal conduct.
What an extraordinary statement to put in a report like that. In recent years, the parliament has been asked to be open-minded on the matter of stem cell research, cloning and RU486, so now to be told that a diversity of opinion weakens the justification for saying no is hypocrisy in its clearest form. Our job as MPs is to distil the views of the diverse interests of the electorate that we represent and then to vote in their best interests. Each one of us has between 80,000 and 90,000 constituents and, at the end of the day, we have to consider many opinions. In doing so, are we then weakening our position as elected representatives? I think not. The fact that the bill has passed the Senate by only one vote is a clear indication of the level of unease in the wider community over this legislation.
Other members of parliament have also raised serious questions about the medicinal and scientific benefits which apparently would flow from this bill. Senator Alan Eggleston was particularly erudite in his comments, arguing that the parliament should not be pressured into passing this bill to suit the biotechnology industry and scientific researchers. The same interest group has promised us that the research which would be allowed under this legislation could provide miraculous medical advances. I ask the promoters of that point of view whether they are not creating a false expectation. Where are the results from this form of cloned research so far?
We went through the excitement of the so-called breakthrough in cloning technology undertaken by the Koreans, only to find out that it was a fraud. Those of us who were here in 2002 will remember the rat that a number of scientists, including Professor Trounson, were taking around this building and showing how its broken back was healed. We found out after the event that it was actually healed by using adult stem cells. So there is a bit of woolly science around here. What are we offering people other than the expectation of miraculous cures?
On the other hand, we have heard of instances where cancer formation in stem cell implants is a real problem, with up to 25 per cent of implants forming highly malignant tumours. We have also heard that, since the current regulatory regime was enacted, only one licence has been granted for research into treating a scientific medical condition—in other words, the rest of the science is very much at a primary stage.
I also ask why we are passing this bill with such uncommon haste and so soon after the Lockhart report. As an MP and, more importantly, as a father and grandfather I would welcome therapeutic treatments which could eradicate degenerative diseases, but I want to see that occur, initially at least, through adult stem cells. We know there have been breakthroughs with adult stem cells. I applaud the granting in the last budget of $22 million to Griffith University and to Dr Silburn and his cohorts to look into the effects of adult stem cells on neurological diseases. To me, that is starting at the right point. There are many cases now of advancement through adult stem cells. I would have thought that, before we moved on to the next sector, we would want to get that right. That has with it none of the implications of this embryonic stem cell and cloning technology.
As I said before, once you start down the slippery slope, how long will it be until some mad scientist somewhere clones a human being? If you start to allow hybrid embryos, as I said before, there will always be someone who unlocks Pandora’s box and lets an embryo develop further. This is really stuff of the Dr Mengele variety; if anything, it is even worse.
Like the member for Kennedy, I take exception to those who have said that those opposing this bill are being driven by some religious direction or by an extreme religious view. I find that insulting. I find that there are a lot of people in this parliament who are driven by ethics. Certainly the way we were brought up in our religious belief is part of the formation of our conscience but, in the end, these sorts of issues are clear cut. They get down to conscience. They get down to being able to say whether you are justified in creating human life or even cloned human life for the specific purpose of killing that life in the expectation that you might be able to do something with it.
As I have said before, I have no argument with adult stem cell technology, and I am heartened by the fact that there have been early successes in this field. But this clone technology frightens me from both an ethical and a personal conviction point of view. I think a lot of our colleagues in this debate have been driven by a false excitement that somehow this is going to create the new nirvana for science. There is so little to justify that point of view. People who have had many years of conviction on this matter are really stepping back, and even those who voted against it two years ago are now prepared to embrace it. I have to ask my colleagues: are you really being true to your private conscience?
I will end on this note. It is something that I quote very often, and I am quite happy for it to go on the record again and again. It is Robert Bolt’s interpretation of St Thomas More. He says:
When statesmen forsake their private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.
That can be true of many types of government decisions, but it will be indelibly true of something as important as the sanctity of life.
41
12:09:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—I listened with interest to the member for Hinkler in his contribution. I thought he made some pertinent points, but none more pertinent than the point he was making about why we are in this building. We are in this building to represent constituents from our electorates. The member for Hinkler mentioned that we all have roughly 88,000 constituents that we are here to represent. I have been listening to the debate on this particular issue with some degree of interest over recent days, and very few people have actually referred to what their constituents are saying.
I will be treating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 no differently to any other legislation. I tend to be a little bit amused at particularly the members of the parties who have this great feeling of freedom when there is a free vote issue—or, as some prefer to call it, a conscience vote. I am not here to represent my conscience; I am here to represent the conscience of the people who elect me. I think that point that the member for Hinkler made really does need to be held in the minds of many of us. Just because the Prime Minister says that members of parliament can do as they theoretically, at least, were elected to do—that is, represent their constituents—this seems to be an extraordinary set of circumstances, in that all of a sudden people start to think about the issues. But most of the people who have spoken have spoken about their own views on this issue—about the sanctity of life, about cloning, about the 14-day period, about the 28-day period, maybe, and about the adult stem cells and the embryonic stem cells—and a lot of them have become instantaneous scientists.
I do not pretend to be any of those things. I have very little real knowledge of how this issue could be extended into the future in terms of scientific analysis, but I do intend to represent my electorate on this issue, because I have asked my electorate what its view is. Obviously, I cannot speak to every person within the electorate, but, as I have done on many other issues, whether they be about the sale of Telstra or many of the resource issues or the various health issues that I have spoken on, I have always referred back to the people who elected me.
In this case, the people who have contacted me and showed their views to me are opposed to this legislation. That does not mean that everybody in the electorate is opposed to it; of course not. But the majority of people who have taken the time to contact and relay information to me or my office have voiced a view that they would like me to vote against this particular piece of legislation. And that is what I intend to do.
I find it almost amusing and to some degree hurtful that some people in Australia cannot get a debate in this place on dental care being part of our healthcare system. We can allocate all of this time to a free vote on an issue—an important issue; it is about life, but so is dental care about health and obviously about life—but very little debate takes place in relation to dental care. I find it difficult to come to terms with the other issues that we face from day to day, one of which comes to mind immediately: the way in which old soldiers who served in the Second World War are being treated differently to old soldiers who served in the Second World War but went overseas, in terms of the allocation of a gold card. They are things that we could be doing very constructively to assist those people in the latter part of their life, but the government seems reluctant to go there and investigate the options that would be available.
Here we are participating in a free vote. Only yesterday there was a massive change in the wheat industry, and in the next six months, potentially, various policy changes are going to take place. When asked whether the lives of people who depend on those decisions would be taken into account, whether a conscience vote of wheat growers as to their own future and the mechanisms of the export of their product would be taken into account, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister ruled it out. They cannot have a free vote. Why are we having a free vote on this? Why do the wheat growers of Australia not have some say in their future lives and in the lives of their children? A lot of the arguments put in debate on this legislation have been about helping people in the future, about children and various illnesses that could be fixed by this legislation.
In conclusion, as I have already intimated, I will be opposing the legislation, not necessarily because of my private view or my conscience but because the majority of people who have taken the time to express their view to me or to my electorate office oppose the legislation.
42
12:16:00
Elson, Kay, MP
6K6
Forde
LP
1
0
Mrs ELSON
—I rise today in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, although it is certainly not something I do lightly or without a great deal of consideration. I have listened with great interest to the many members of this House who have spoken before me in the debate. I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time today. Many speakers have outlined concerns similar to those I have on the whole issue of embryonic research and cloning. As a mother of eight and grandmother of 15, I have very strong views on how precious human life is. I have spoken before about this issue in debates on abortion and euthanasia.
I am conscious that our consideration must also take into account the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ argument—that once we start down this path, it is easy to go further than we first envisaged—but I have made the decision to allow the use of ‘surplus’ IVF embryos that would otherwise have gone to waste, as we did back in 2002. I think it would be inconsistent not to consider other strictly regulated options as technology develops and possibilities grow.
If we agree that some degree of medical research can be carried out under strict regulation, I think we are saying that regulation is an effective safeguard to ensure we do not go too far down the wrong path. After much consideration, I do not think this bill goes too far or down the wrong path. There will still be strict regulation of embryo research. Embryos created through an ova fertilized by sperm will still not be specially created for the purpose of research. Only surplus IVF embryos that would otherwise be destroyed can be used for this purpose, as has been the case since 2002. This bill will allow, however, an unfertilized ova to be ‘developed’ through cloning techniques to an extremely early blastocyst stage—basically a collection of cells—and then used for the creation of an embryonic stem cell line.
Even saying that, it sounds incredibly like something from a science fiction novel—and a little scary as well. The whole idea of cloning has extremely negative connotations, and rightly so. To look at it from a scientific perspective, it is the development of one cell of a human body into a very small cluster of cells no larger than a pinhead. I understand that the whole process is usually completed in four to five days.
There will be strict regulation. A licence must be applied for and under no circumstances can any embryo be developed outside the body of a woman for longer than 14 days. So there will not be cloned babies with any resemblance to human form being created. It is important to be reminded that this bill retains our existing strict prohibition on many activities, including: placing a human embryo in a human or animal body; importing or exporting human embryo clones; creating a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by sperm donated for other than the purposes of achieving a pregnancy in a woman; making heritable alterations to a human genome; collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman; and a range of other options that we as a parliament have decided do go down the wrong path, which we must be careful to avoid.
This legislation allows us to go down a path that may significantly ease the suffering of many people. That essentially is why I have decided to support this bill. The possibilities of stem cell research are very exciting and varied. Not all those possibilities may eventuate, but they are definitely worthy of pursuit.
Members of this House would be aware that, before entering parliament, I worked to raise funds for, and awareness of, those suffering from profound disabilities—with Multicap, the Queensland Spastic Welfare League and the handicapped association, now known as the Horizon Foundation. I have seen firsthand the daily struggle faced by many people living with a disability and also the difficulties this situation can cause for families, particularly as their child grows to an adult and continues to require a high level of care. If this research can offer some hope, if it can possibly mean that down the track others will not have to go through the same difficult situation, I think in this parliament we cannot deprive people of that possibility.
I am a realist. I know that stem cell research is still in its early days. No-one should expect it will provide a miracle cure to all our ills. But there is a chance—a very slight one—and, wherever possible, we need to grasp that chance and see what we can do. If it can improve the lives of people living with a disability or disease, surely we have to at least review our laws relating to the technology and see how they can accommodate the scientific development.
This bill is an ‘accommodation’ of the development of stem cell research. Australian researchers are world leaders in this field and to block them from an emerging possibility—such as therapeutic cloning—could seriously set back their research. Therapeutic cloning is a technique used in 10 countries around the world, including the UK and Singapore, who have legislated for it, and the US, where it is allowed due to lack of legislation stopping it. If Australian scientists do not have access to this technique, who knows what chances and opportunities we may lose.
I acknowledge that it is just one field of stem cell research. I also believe that we must do more to develop other fields, including adult stem cell research and especially cord blood stem cell research. I think we ought to do more to encourage the collection of cord blood, as I believe this is a resource that is severely underutilised. I would like to see a situation where women giving birth in every hospital around Australia have the option of donating their cord blood. I know that two of my daughters who have given birth in the last couple of years have asked about donating their cord blood and were told there was no collection service at their particular hospital.
More must be done to ensure that this valuable resource is not lost. I acknowledge that good results have been achieved with cord blood and adult stem cell research, but that does not mean we ought to stop exploring other options. Alexander Graham Bell did an incredible job with the first telephone. If others had said, ‘That’s good enough,’ and not developed and perfected his technology, exploring new possibilities and applications, then we would not have the internet today. So I do not subscribe to the view that we do not ‘need’ to carry out embryonic stem cell research just because other forms of stem cells are proving useful.
The main reason I have decided to support this bill is the strict safeguards that will remain in place. This bill by no means represents a free-for-all or a significant weakening of the original legislation. I acknowledge also that this bill is a result of the recommendations of the Lockhart review, which looked at the issue very comprehensively and was able to consider scientific developments since the original legislation. The review committee members were all highly intelligent experts in various fields and they consulted widely, considering over 1,000 different submissions. I think, therefore, that their recommendations hold a great deal of weight and that it is right we seek to accommodate the main recommendations, as we do with this bill.
As I said earlier, I do not want to take up too much of this parliament’s time. I merely want to outline my reason for supporting this legislation, despite the hesitations I have with this whole area of research. I simply think that if any member of my family or any of the constituents of Forde were suffering from, for example, diabetes, paraplegia or Parkinson’s—all diseases for which this research holds some hope—then I would want to hold on to that chance; I would want to explore that possibility. So, with proper safeguards and regulations in place to ensure this research does not cross over ethical boundaries, I support this legislation. My hope is that one day we will see real results with this research, whether it is in my lifetime, my children’s or my grandchildren’s. I would not like to be counted as someone who stood in the way of that important progress, so I support this bill and commend it to the House.
45
12:24:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
0
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—In rising to make my contribution to the second reading debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, can I say what a difficult issue that I and many others have found this to be. In light of this, I would like to acknowledge and thank the members of this parliament who have already contributed to this debate. I have been very impressed with the well-reasoned and valued contributions from members on both sides of the House and from both sides of the argument. I would also like to thank the many members of my local community who have contacted me to give their thoughts and opinions as well as some of the research that has been available to them to assist me in making my decision on this matter. I also do not propose to speak for very long on this issue. Many before me have appropriately outlined the major issues. I do believe, though, that I owe it to those whom I represent to outline my decision on this matter and the reasons for that decision.
As we all know, conscience votes are very difficult. I find this one particularly so. I was very well aware that whatever conclusion I reached on this matter there would be those who would be disappointed in my decision. To those I can only say: ‘Please be assured that I have spent much time exploring this issue and listening to and reading the different views surrounding it.’ I have found this debate particularly difficult. In contrast to the earlier conscience vote this year—which, in my mind, was about process and, as such, was for me a relatively black-and-white decision—I have lost sleep grappling with the many different shades of grey involved in this particular matter.
I have heard that it has been assumed that I would support this bill. Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot. I think this shows that it is unwise to assume how one would vote on these issues. Instead, we should recognise that each individual will work through these issues and follow their conscience to reach their own conclusions. I do not normally regard myself as conservative. I am not one who is basing this decision on their own religious convictions, though I do admit that at times recently I have been quite envious of those whose faith has made this a black-and-white issue with an unquestioned conclusion. For me, this was not the case.
During the course of this debate people on both sides of the argument have made many strong points that I agree with; however, some people have made suggestions that I profoundly disagree with and would like to very briefly address. There has been an assertion here from several members that only people who do not care about the sick and who do not wish to give hope to their loved ones would vote against this legislation. I find this argument both false and deeply offensive. It is unreasonable to assume that all those who oppose this legislation oppose science and medical treatment. I do not. I believe that science has an important and exciting role in the treatment of illness and disease. I believe in investing in science. I believe in supporting the Australian research community and building on past successes. But I am also clear that this science takes place within the ethical parameters set by this parliament.
Many of us here know the pain of watching loved ones suffer. I certainly know that in my own experience I clung to any hope available and I absolutely understand others doing the same. I support stem cell research. I hope that this research eventually provides remarkable results, though I note that these results may be quite some time away. As the member for Wakefield noted, Professor Ian Frazer, the 2006 Australian of the Year, said that therapies from these proposals could not be expected for at least 75 years. But I support adult stem cell research, I support umbilical cord stem cell research and I support stem cell research using surplus IVF embryos. I cannot, however, support this proposal.
There are two factors upon which my decision to oppose this legislation has been based. The first is my deep reservation and, indeed, opposition to human cloning. Like many within the community, I am absolutely and entirely opposed to human cloning. I see it as unthinkable. I believe that others have tried to gloss over the fact that this is at the heart of this proposal. It is exactly the same process that created the late Dolly the sheep, and this parliament must be very clear about the path that it is proposing we tread down. This legislation states that human cloning is okay, but only for 14 days. I do not think that human cloning is okay at all, but I also have a problem with the fact that I do not see any reason that would rule out our revisiting this clause in the future when scientists decide that in fact they do not just need 14 days—they need an extra week or an extra month, or any other time frame. As I see it, we find ourselves at the top of the human cloning slippery slope, and it is a slide that I believe we should steer well clear of and reject from the outset.
The advances of science bring with them amazing discoveries, remarkable solutions and revolutionary treatments, but they will increasingly also bring big decisions and ethical dilemmas for this parliament. There is a line which must be respected. Where that line is drawn may differ from member to member, but we as a parliament must be clear on our role. It is the job of the scientific community to explore new frontiers and to push new barriers. Equally, it is the job of us as legislators to stand firm and protect the line that should not be crossed.
The second factor which ensures that this proposal is beyond the line that I draw for myself has been well covered by previous speakers. This bill proposes creating human life solely for the purpose of then destroying it. I am deeply uncomfortable with this proposition. I do not believe that the proponents of this legislation have made the case. After listening to the debate, after researching the matter, I do not see the justification for crossing this line. I know that many will disagree with my conclusion, and I have little doubt that the majority of this parliament will arrive at a different conclusion to me and approve this proposal, but upon my election I pledged to remain true and to act in good conscience and I believe that it would be breaking this vow to endorse a proposal that, at the heart of it, I feel so deeply uncomfortable about. Ultimately this proposal may not be wrong, but I certainly do not know that it is right, and as such I cannot support this legislation and I will be opposing it.
46
12:32:00
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
0
Mr ANDREWS
—One year ago, the committee appointed to inquire into the nation’s human cloning legislation reported to the Australian government. The committee, chaired by the late Mr John Lockhart, proposed to allow embryos to be created specifically for the purpose of destructive scientific research. This proposal goes far beyond the existing situation whereby embryos left over from IVF programs can be used, under certain circumstances, for destructive research. It also reverses the clear intention of the parliament in 2002 when it rejected such a pathway. As the then Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, stated at the conclusion of the parliamentary debate, all members had ‘unanimously agreed that a ban on human cloning and other unacceptable practices is crucial’. In voting to ban human cloning, the parliament had clearly included procedures and research involving somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT. As the then Minister for Health, Senator Patterson, said, the legislation’s definition of embryo:
... encompasses all embryos, regardless of how they were created ... This includes embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer ...
The committee’s terms of reference repeated the requirements for the review, as set out in the human cloning legislation. Specifically, the committee was asked to review the legislation, taking into account: developments in technology in relation to assisted reproductive technology; developments in medical research and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications of such research; community standards; and the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank. In other words, the committee was charged to examine scientific and technical developments on the one hand, and community standards on the other. In particular, it was asked to consider whether there had been scientific developments or changes in community standards that could justify a retreat from the clear rejection of human cloning, however performed.
Having read the Lockhart report and much subsequent scientific research literature, I believe that the committee has failed to adduce any adequate evidence that would justify overturning the ban on the deliberate creation of embryos, including by SCNT, for destructive research. I therefore oppose this bill. I also oppose this bill for a more critical reason—namely, that by passing this bill the Parliament of Australia will legitimise the treatment of humans as commodities. As Frank Brennan has stated:
To create embryos with no intention of permitting implantation is to cross a moral Rubicon.
Instead of nurturing our offspring, we as a human species will have agreed to plunder them. ‘Do no harm’ is a principle which has enlightened 2,500 years of Western medical and scientific practice. It is the bedrock upon which ethical medical science is founded. It has been restated in various declarations over the past 60 years, beginning with the 1948 Declaration of Geneva. This enlightened tradition has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. We should not depart from it. It is dangerous to treat any human life as expendable. The proponents of embryonic stem cell experimentation often like to paint their opponents as having a religious view, but concern about destructive research is shared by many people, of religious belief and none. Guy Rundle, editor of the leftist magazine Arena, has written:
As human life becomes increasingly abstracted, commodified, manipulable and dehumanised, a wider sense of foreboding spreads.
Another non-religious critic, Kate Cregan, observes:
I am concerned with what these technologies do to us socially, how they contribute to normalising the idea that we are reducible to the sum of our interchangeable, abstracted, constitutive parts.
Having commodified the child, we are now told that we should objectify life itself, turning us all into potential spare parts. As Kate Cregan writes:
You get caught pitting one set of competing liberal rights against another, and like a good utilitarian weighing and apportioning worth to desires, totting up ethereal happiness factors in an abstract equation that flattens out any social or cultural content in what is involved.
Worse still, this science will only work if tens of thousands of eggs can be procured. As Katrina George notes:
... the eggs have to come from somewhere and experience overseas shows that the only way is to pay women.
In Britain this has already occurred—so the embryo is a commodity and women become commercial egg suppliers. And all this is being done in the name of potential. In the Lockhart report, we read:
The Committee ... agreed with the many respondents who thought that the moral significance of cloned embryos that are not implanted is linked more closely to their potential for research developments ... than to their potential as a human life.
Where are the benefits that could even justify the greatest good for the greatest number? We are being sold a scientific mirage. As Professor James Sherley pointed out, the science is flawed for the fundamental reason that ‘embryonic cells cannot be used to replace adult tissues’.
There are more than 100,000 embryos left over from IVF procedures in freezers in Australia, yet there have been only a handful of applications to study them under existing legislation. And none of these studies has reported substantive, refereed results. This bill not only will allow embryos to be created for deliberate destruction but will allow eggs to be harvested from aborted female foetuses for similar use. I find this particular proposal reprehensible. How many Australians—indeed, how many members of this House—know that this bill allows for licences to be issued authorising the creation of a human embryo using ‘precursor cells from an embryo or foetus’?
The technical term ‘precursor cell’ is defined in the existing legislation as a cell that has the potential to develop into a human egg or human sperm. The proposal is that a human embryo could be made by using eggs taken from a female foetus. Research on this technique was described by Israeli scientists in 2003. They took a slice of ovarian tissue from each of seven aborted baby girls and conducted successful experiments in maturing eggs from this tissue. The baby girls had been aborted between 22 weeks and 33 weeks gestation. It is generally anticipated that eggs could only be derived from baby girls aborted late term in pregnancy.
The Lockhart review produced no scientific rationale for this proposition in its report, nor could the former members of the committee supply any rationale for it in answer to questions from the Senate inquiry. The Senate rightly removed from this bill the abhorrent provision that human-animal hybrids could be created using animal eggs and human DNA. I ask honourable members who may be listening to this debate: how many of you will return to your electorates at the end of this week and tell your constituents that you voted for a provision that would allow a human embryo to be created from the eggs of a second or third trimester aborted baby girl? Tell me that you believe that such a procedure has the support of Australians. It does not, and it should be rejected.
Let me return to my other objections to this bill. Firstly, the title of bill implies that its purpose is to prohibit human cloning. It does no such thing. What the bill does is to allow an embryo to be formed by the process of SCNT. If that embryo is then destroyed to obtain embryonic stem cells, it is lawful. If, alternatively, that embryo was to be implanted into a woman, it is unlawful. The bill does not prohibit human cloning at all. Its central purpose is to allow human cloning. It then prohibits a particular use of the cloned embryo, namely for reproduction, but allows its destruction.
Indeed, the Lockhart committee argued that, as there is no intention to create a person, embryonic stem cell cloning is ethical. No attempt was made by the committee to explain the moral or logical difference between creating a person’s cells and creating a person. Indeed, the Lockhart committee bases its conclusions on the ‘relational significance’ of the embryo. This is an absurd proposition in the first place, which is then undermined by attaching a different ethical significance to the embryo, depending upon its age. We are told that the ethical significance of the embryo changes on day 14. On day 13 it can be destroyed for research, but on day 15 it cannot.
This argument is totally unconvincing. It reflects the shifting goalposts that have been a feature of this debate over the past six years. As other honourable members have pointed out in their contributions to this debate, who is to say that in another year or two or three the argument will not be advanced that we accepted day 14, so why don’t we accept day 28 or day 56 or whatever? Further, the distinction that some draw in this debate between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning is mistaken. It was rejected by the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into human cloning, which I chaired in 2001. What is proposed is the destruction of the embryo, not some procedure undertaken for its benefit.
As the US President’s Council on Bioethics stated, we should resist ‘the temptation to solve the moral questions by artful redefinition or by denying to some morally crucial element a name that makes clear that there is a moral question to be faced’. The council concluded that an embryo produced by SCNT is an embryo. Whether or not we agree with the destruction of embryos, it is misleading to pretend that this bill prohibits embryo cloning.
Secondly, the bill is premised on the assertion that there have been substantial developments in stem cell technology since 2002 that justify the deliberate creation of human embryos for destructive research. The committee’s reasoning is parlous in the extreme. It states that ‘further research involving both adult and embryonic stem cells is required to improve knowledge and to develop effective disease treatments’, that such research is undertaken elsewhere and that regulations can prevent any ‘slippery slope’. Further, as there was no intention to implant the embryo, its moral status could be ignored.
Prominent among the overseas research referred to by the committee was that undertaken in Korea by Professor Hwang, who had been feted in scientific circles for having purportedly shown that this type of research could be used to tailor cures for specific diseases. Hwang was subsequently outed as a fraud for fabricating his research. The Hwang saga and other cases of extravagant claims call for a healthy dose of scepticism when making public policy in this field. This is especially so in cases of claims that embryonic stem cells will lead to cures for Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and other life-threatening illnesses.
Leaving Hwang aside, there is little evidence of real scientific progress. Consider the conclusions of Professor Jack Martin in his evidence to the committee:
The potential benefits of treatment of diseases with human ES cells have been greatly exaggerated, with many of the suggested cures only long term possibilities and some not even remotely possible. There has been no proof of concept provided from animal experiments that animal ES cells can be used effectively and with long term safety.
The use of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to generate ES cells to tailor cells for individual patients is a process that is beset with many practical difficulties, including the requirement for a large supply of donor eggs, and the inevitable very great expense of the project per patient.
In addition to requiring animal studies to establish efficacy, safety issues are paramount, with ES cell transplantation still being associated with a substantial rate of formation of serious tumours. The causes of that complication must be determined and tumour formation prevented before any human therapeutic studies could be contemplated.
Currently there is no evidence to justify even the most limited trial of ES cells in treatment of human subjects.
With no adequate evidence to show that human ES cells are essential to provide treatments for disease, the argument has been made that research should be permitted on human ES cells obtained by SCNT, to study mechanisms of specific diseases. The validity of this claim must also be established through animal experimentation, to show that the potential benefits are sufficient to overcome some of the ethical objections.
The United States National Institute of Health Stem Cell Task Force provided evidence similar to that of Professor Martin to the US House of Representatives government reform committee, and yet the Lockhart committee blithely accepted the claims being made for this research. It stated, for example:
Many researchers, and people with diseases that could potentially be treated with ES cell therapies, would like the prohibition on cloning to generate ES cells to be lifted.
But, as Professor Martin and others have indicated, there are numerous practical problems with so-called therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells. No embryonic stem cell technology is even remotely close to a clinical trial. The committee conceded that embryonic stem cell research:
... is mainly confined to preclinical (animal) studies because the cells are not yet characterised well enough for use in clinical trials and there are significant risks (such as tumour formation).
Hence the situation today remains exactly the same as it was four years ago when this parliament unanimously rejected such a proposal. Instead of the scepticism that should have been brought to this review, the committee takes the claims of potential for granted. Indeed, the committee:
... considered that the higher the potential benefits of an activity, the greater the need for ethical objections to be of a high level and widely accepted in order to prevent that activity.
In other words, the greater the claim of potential benefit, despite any real evidence, the easier it is to reject ethical considerations and objections. This is not a logical or rational argument; it is pure advocacy. The legislation review process was, in my view, fundamentally flawed. The committee did not test any competing ethical claims. Detailed work undertaken by bodies such as the President’s Council on Bioethics, for example, was all but ignored by the Lockhart committee. Thirdly, the committee’s discussion of community attitudes was flawed. Although it referred to a survey by Biotechnology Australia about public acceptance of the technology, it ignored other surveys, such as the 2004 Swinburne study. That study showed considerable public disquiet about the use of cloned embryos but acceptance of the use of the ethically less contentious adult stem cells.
Worse still, the committee invented a novel approach to community standards in order to justify its conclusions. Instead of adopting the time-honoured, legally established methods of ascertaining general standards approved by most reasonable members of the community, the committee invented a series of communities with different standards and concerns. As Professor Frank Brennan has pointed out, Australian courts have rejected such an approach time and time again. The novel approach, however, allowed the committee to dismiss the overwhelming majority of submissions from individuals who opposed destructive cloning research. Indeed, the committee’s response to public disquiet is an ongoing education campaign—Brave New World!
I do not believe the committee nor the proponents of this legislation have produced any evidence of either scientific developments or changed community attitudes that would justify passing the bill. An embryo is not a commodity. This bill ought to be rejected.
51
12:49:00
Wilkie, Kim, MP
84G
Swan
ALP
0
0
Mr WILKIE
—I rise to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and to outline some of my reasons for supporting it and rejecting the amendments which are proposed by the member for Bass, which are clearly designed purely to prevent the bill’s passage when it returns to the Senate, if amended.
In considering the issues surrounding this legislation, I thought back to the way in which advances in knowledge have been greeted in the past, particularly medical knowledge but also others. In many cases when advances have been made they have been greeted with hostility and opposition on the basis of a range of ill-informed opinions. I believe that this will be the case with the technology being proposed in this legislation. Its opponents have mounted a range of arguments but, in my view, in a few years time we will look back on this debate and know that we did the right thing in supporting this bill.
Let us not forget that when astronomers worked out that the world was round, many of them were decried. When the Wright brothers took to the air, there was deep suspicion in some quarters of this new technology and some believed that it was against God’s will for people to fly. In terms of medical science, when anaesthetics were used for the first time in childbirth, many in the scientific and religious worlds were highly critical. Debate raged in medical and religious circles and spread throughout the broader community.
At the time it was reported that a Dr Petrie from Liverpool considered the use of anaesthesia in childbirth to be a breach of medical ethics. He described this use as ‘the act of a coward’ and said that if a woman insisted on the use of chloroform to alleviate her labour pains she must be told that she was in no fit state to make decisions. There were also clergymen who argued that the use of anaesthetics was prohibited by the Bible, which states that ‘in sorrow shall thy bring forward children’. A noted pioneer of anaesthesia, Sir James Simpson, responded humorously that on the occasion of the first recorded operation—the removal of a rib—the Lord had caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, proof of his support for anaesthesia. In his defence of the use of chloroform, Dr Simpson noted that some churchmen had also spoken against optical glasses and spectacles as ‘offsprings of man’s wicked mind’.
It took Queen Victoria’s use of chloroform for the births of her eighth and ninth children for the controversy to end. She gave its use respectability and described it as ‘that blessed chloroform’. Nowadays we wonder what all the fuss and arguments back then about anaesthesia in childbirth were all about. The point is that all through history we can find examples of resistance and opposition to new medical technologies which have significantly enhanced the quality of human life.
When heart transplants were being pioneered, there was opposition among some who claimed that they were unethical. Dr Christiaan Barnard is most often associated with pioneering heart transplants, as is American doctor Norman Shumway, who died earlier this year. Dr Shumway’s research work at Stanford University enabled post-surgical deaths to be reduced. He persevered at a time when there was significant controversy over legal issues such as what constituted brain death among potential donors. Today such operations, if not quite routine, are non-controversial, and thousands of lives have been saved or improved.
History is full of such examples. Debate has raged about many other medical techniques, from blood transfusions through to IVF. There are some who remain opposed to the use of blood transfusions on ethical grounds and others who continue to mount arguments against the ethics of IVF. And yet I am sure all of us know families who have benefited enormously from IVF and have found much happiness from it.
The legislation before us today could pave the way for cures to be researched for diabetes, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, motor neurone disease, spinal cord injuries and many other conditions. How can we stand in the way of such advances? To the people who are spouting the ethics of the day, can I say that none of the other medical research work would have even been undertaken, let alone introduced, in the past. I believe we cannot and should not stand in the way of these sorts of advances.
Last sitting week we had children with diabetes in this place. We looked at the research that might be undertaken to help cure some of the diseases and money that the government will be putting into some of that research. Unfortunately, that research will be limited unless we can pass this sort of technology so that we can look at effectively curing juvenile diabetes. I think it is beholden on all of us to remember what those kids are suffering and to do all that we can to try and improve their lives.
I have received many letters and emails about this issue and have read them all carefully. People have talked about the numerous letters and emails that they have received. From across the country, I can confidently say, because I have saved them all personally, that I have received less than 100 such emails and letters and probably only half a dozen that have come from my electorate—some in support and some in opposition.
As I said, I have weighed the arguments on both sides and have come to the conclusion that I must support this bill. I know that my decision will not be welcomed by some. But I fervently believe that when we are elected as members we must be willing to stand up and be counted for what we believe in. I cannot in all conscience stand by and oppose this bill and in doing so put hurdles in the way of medical research which would benefit so many so significantly. I say that as a Christian, someone who believes in the Christian way of life and beliefs. I believe that we cannot stand in the way of treating these sorts of diseases and finding cures.
Before I finish I would like to say a few things about some of the myths being put forward by those who oppose this bill. Some have argued that this bill would allow human cloning and the development of animal-human hybrids. Anyone who has read the legislation knows that this is a pure fabrication and it is not going to occur. I am quite disgusted that, in what is supposed to be an honest debate on the value of ethics, people would put forward suggestions that are clearly not true purely to try and prevent the passage of the bill. I reject these arguments. They are just misleading and dangerous.
This bill is not about the merits or ethical dimensions of embryonic stem cell research. We had that debate in 2002. The issue we face now is the use of therapeutically cloned or somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos as an additional source for research. Other countries are already using these research techniques. I was in Scotland earlier this year and I talked to their people about what we were looking at introducing in this parliament. They could not understand what the debate was all about. They lead the world in this sort of technology and they believe that it has great beneficial prospects for the future. I do not believe that we should deny Australians the potential opportunities that could arise from the research to be permitted by this bill.
I would like to acknowledge the contributions made in the development of this bill by Senators Patterson, Webber and Stott Despoja and by the member for Moore, Dr Mal Washer. All of these people have been instrumental in enabling us to have this bill debated today. Without their commitment this bill would not have reached the House. I also want to recognise the many contributions made by other colleagues in the House. In this debate we have heard many members tell of their personal and family experiences with regard to medical conditions for which cures may be offered by this bill. Many of their accounts have been heart-rending and I have been saddened to hear of their anguish. I firmly believe that we cannot turn our backs on the potential for all Australians to benefit from research which would be enabled by this bill.
With regard to the proposed Ferguson—the member for Bass—amendment, I observed discussions with my friend and colleague the member for Moore, who referred to the ethical guidelines covering the use of human tissue for biometrical research in Australia. He pointed out that in October 1983 the National Health and Medical Research Council introduced guidelines covering the use of foetal tissue for biometrical research in Australia. These guidelines ensure:
(i) there is distinct separation between the patient and the research group in both the decision-making process and the proximity of the research to the clinical ward; and (ii) parental consent is obtained for the use of the tissue. These guidelines stipulate that the human fetal tissue used must be from terminations of pregnancy at less than 20 weeks’ gestation and where the weight of the fetus is less than 400 g.
So we are not talking about late-term abortion foetal material being used for this research. That is blatantly untrue. We should remember that when we are looking at amendments being moved in the consideration in detail stage. As I said before, we have heard much debate on this particular bill. I believe it needs to be passed in its unamended form. We do not need to send it back to the Senate for consideration of amendments. I urge honourable members in this place to support its passage.
53
12:59:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I rise to contribute to the House’s debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. As all members would be aware, this is a complex and contentious issue which has driven much passionate debate within the community. The residents of Aston have been forthright in communicating their well-considered and thoughtful views on this issue. I want to place on the record that I appreciate the time and effort that my constituents have brought to bear on the national debate, and they have all meaningfully contributed to my own thinking on this important matter. It is important to note that it is issues such as this, where members have the opportunity to exercise a free vote, that I believe show our parliament at its best. This is the third time that a free vote has occurred since I entered the parliament in August 2001, and I think it is instructive to observe yet again that it has been in this free-vote debate that we have heard what I believe are some of the most significant, personal and heartfelt contributions ever made by members of parliament.
I want to acknowledge and recognise what I believe is the fundamental motive driving those who have introduced this bill into the parliament. I think those supporting this bill are, without question, doing so in an endeavour to assist and help people in the future through advances in medical research and disease prevention. I want to say very strongly that I too share the desire to assist and help people, but I believe strongly that the approach taken with this bill is misguided. The genesis of this bill arose from the recommendations of the Lockhart review. In 2002 the parliament passed the Research Involving Embryos Act and Prohibition of Human Cloning Act. As a result, the Lockhart review was established by the parliament to consider issues arising out of the debate and the legislation that was passed in 2002.
In the 2002 debate I said I found the issues most challenging, but in relation to the question of research involving embryos I said:
... I believe the structure of this bill provides us with a framework that allows some investigation to occur in what will be a controlled and regulated environment.
I thought back then that I could, on balance, support this issue because what we were talking about with the bill back in 2002 was a limited and constrained approach to research on pre-existing embryos that were surplus to IVF requirements and were otherwise destined to be destroyed. In relation to the second component of the 2002 debate, the prohibition of human cloning, I said:
... I oppose outright the human cloning component.
I recall with interest that all my parliamentary colleagues from all sides of the parliament agreed with this view back in 2002. Human cloning was unanimously rejected by the parliament back then, and I am not convinced that anything has significantly changed since that time.
In considering this bill before us now, my view remains consistent. I oppose human cloning. In examining this bill and the Pandora’s box of issues that surround it I have arrived at a point where I believe the potential consequences of the bill are profoundly disturbing. I find it disturbing for a number of reasons, but there are three key issues that cause me to be greatly concerned about the bill and its future ramifications. First, I oppose the deliberate creation of cloned embryos for the purpose of their destruction. I believe it is unethical and inappropriate, I believe it is contrary to human dignity and I believe it degrades fundamental community standards.
Second, reproductive and therapeutic—in reality, the more appropriate word would be ‘destructive’—cloning are based on precisely the same technology. I believe the use of one will inevitably lead to the use of the other and therefore result in the inappropriate and potential misuse of technology for destructive purposes. This is an aspect of the laws that will potentially come from this bill that I am concerned has not received the full consideration it warrants. This bill seeks to impose limitations on those researchers who abide by its requirements. However, those who do not respect the legal boundaries of this bill could, and I believe some will, pursue unethical and illegal activities to the detriment of community standards.
My third reason for not supporting this bill is based on the fact that there remain very significant medical and scientific issues about the use and suitability of this technology for humans. The technology now available could profoundly and adversely inflict more harm and disease on people rather than be the panacea we are told it might be. I have read that evidence exists that the cells tend to be rejected by the immune system. More critical is that they may cause teratomas, which are monstrous malignant tumours.
John Martin, the emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Melbourne, has written:
There are no cell-based therapies for any disease that would warrant the preparation of human embryonic stem cells by … “therapeutic cloning”.
Commentators have made the point that research has been conducted on adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells since the 1950s, but only adult stem cells have produced any cures. Adult stem cells have produced breakthroughs in the treatment of type 1 diabetes, liver disease and spinal cord injuries, to name just a few. Queensland scientist Dr Peter Silburn has said:
... if you have a galloping horse like adult stem cells, why not pursue that?
Importantly, it is critical to note that embryonic stem cells have produced very little effect in treating people with prolonged and life-threatening illness. Professor John Martin has suggested:
... it remains the case that embryonic stem cells have never yet been shown in animal research to provide a cure that is sufficiently prolonged and free of complications to warrant human studies. To accept the urgency of work on human embryonic stem cells in the face of the ethical barrier, then at least one experimental example should be provided of safe, prolonged and substantially effective treatment that is better than any existing treatments.
Many eminent academic scholars with either a scientific or ethical focus have argued cogently and reasonably for their views. The scientific method demands that for a process to be considered reliable and valid a significant amount of compelling evidence proving the accuracy of the theory must be presented. I am yet to be convinced at this stage of the debate that the scientific evidence in support of the bill has reached that necessary and crucial threshold. Of even greater significance to me, I am not satisfied that we can meet our ethical obligations to protect the Australian community through the blind pursuit of scientific advancement of the sort that this bill would require. As a result, I am not able to support this bill.
In closing, I wish to repeat the words of Professor Martin, who said:
In truth there is a long way to go before a compelling argument can be made for the development of human embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Whatever the nature of science, it must be ethically justifiable.
Even if proof through animal experimentation were provided, and a case more convincing than anything that has so far been produced was made, great caution is needed. Even then, even under those circumstances, which are circumstances not available to us today, we would only proceed, I believe, if, as Professor Martin put it, we were prepared to accept the highly questionable utilitarian principle that the end always justifies the means. I hold the view that the people of Australia would not suspend their ethical principles in the blind pursuit of any goal, no matter how noble that goal may be.
55
13:10:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—The questions raised by the bill before this House, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, are as difficult and complex as those that I discussed in this place in the debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Back then I described the dilemma of how to legislate scientific research that opens a world of possibilities without surrendering a piece of our moral soul. And now in 2006 I revisit this same dilemma. I envy those who see these issues as black or white; I certainly do not.
In order to come to my decision to support or not support this bill I have waded through mountains of material, from the Lockhart review to some of the many submissions made to the Senate committees. I have also been cognisant of the very persuasive speeches of others in this place, including the member for Gwydir and the member for Higgins. I have also read each and every one of the many letters from my constituents on this matter. For many of my constituents this is a black or white issue. There are those who believe that anything that can be done to alleviate suffering in our community should be done. There are others who believe that somatic cell nuclear transfer is morally wrong.
Ultimately my decision must be based on my own belief of when life starts and the implications of providing a green light to research in the area most closely aligned with the beginning of life. I cannot divorce my own faith from these deliberations. Based on the provisions of the bill, I do not believe that we are sacrificing life in order to research and develop a better quality of life for others.
The Jesuits who taught me at school instilled in me a strong sense of faith and compassion. They also taught me about the importance of a free and informed conscience. Provided my conscience is clear then my decision to support the bill must be based on sound medical reasoning.
In 2002 I voted to allow the use of in vitro fertilisation excess embryos for medical research. Since then there have been many advances in stem cell research using both adult and embryonic stem cells. New data generated demonstrates the value of both embryonic and adult stem cells, and somatic cell nuclear transfer. The science in support of this bill is compelling. In a recent letter to all members of parliament, Professor Ian Fraser highlighted just a few of the recent results being achieved by stem cell research, including the generation of insulin-producing cells with the potential to treat diabetes, cardiac cells which could be used to repair a damaged heart, dopamine-producing cells to treat Parkinson’s disease, and retinal cells and spinal cord cells to repair damaged nervous systems. This impressive list is just the tip of the iceberg of what may be achieved.
I have closely examined the report of the late Justice John Lockhart. I knew John Lockhart and I held him in high regard. It is my view that the committee he chaired was eminently qualified to consider complex scientific, ethical and legislative issues. It would be remiss of us to dispense with this comprehensive review without very careful consideration.
Australia has a proud history of health and medical research and the Commonwealth government is committed to ensuring that Australia remains a world leader in health and medical research. On a per capita basis, our research output is twice the OECD average. This year, the government has committed more than $490 million in health and medical research funding through the National Health and Medical Research Council. This is more than double the funding provided in 1999.
Much has been said in recent years about the challenges of our ageing population. The growth rate of the population aged 85 or over is projected to accelerate sharply. How can we ensure that our ageing population benefits from a decent quality of life if we do not invest in or allow innovative medical research? I am proud of Australia’s achievements in medical research. They are characterised by the sort of spirit and resourcefulness ingrained in Australian society.
In his submission to the Senate committee, Dr Paul Brock highlighted three potential opportunities to be opened up by legalising somatic cell nuclear transfer. Firstly, it could help us understand the cause or causes of motor neurone disease. Secondly, it could extend the life expectancy and quality of life of those living with the disease. And, thirdly, it has the potential to find a cure. I repeat: the potential to find a cure. Motor neurone disease was first identified by French neurologist Jean Charcot in 1869. It is a tragedy that today there is still no cure.
Australian scientists have consistently demonstrated innovation and moderation in their approach. It is important that they continue to reflect the faith that those who vote for this bill have shown in them. The stringent safeguards provided in this bill give me every confidence that there is no ‘slippery slope’. It was not too long ago that we were having similar controversial debates about organ donation and IVF. This year more than 600 Australians have received organ and tissue donations and the most recently available statistics on the number of babies born to women using artificial reproductive technology, including in vitro fertilisation, reported that more than 8,000 babies were born in 2004. Organ donation is now encouraged and championed by most as the greatest gift you could give to another. I personally know a number of parents who have children conceived through IVF and it is clear to me that these children are the greatest gift their parents could receive.
Professor Singer, in his book The Reproduction Revolution: new ways of making babies,discusses whether these developments are really going to improve the human condition or whether they are going to harm it. That is the fundamental question in this debate: will this bill improve or harm the human condition? I believe that anything we can do to improve the quality of human life, we should do.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in their most recent Burden of disease report, stated that there were just under 700,000 Australians suffering from diabetes, more than 40,000 with Parkinson’s disease, almost 600 with motor neurone disease, 7,600 with multiple sclerosis and 124,000 with Alzheimer’s disease. How could we deny these people, and their family and friends who care for them, the possibility of a cure? Providing people with hope is no longer the exclusive domain of religion. And whilst I understand that we will probably not find a cure for any of these diseases in the very near future, it is not for me to deny hope that in the future these insidious illnesses can be cured. I do believe in the sanctity of human life and I believe in the dignity of the self.
In framing its recommendations, the Lockhart committee noted in compelling terms that ‘the higher the potential benefits of an activity, the greater the need for ethical objections to be of a high level and widely accepted in order to prevent that activity’. Whilst my decision to support this bill would never be based on populism, I have no ethical objections that outweigh the enormous benefits this research may deliver to the generations that follow us. I commend the bill to the House.
57
13:19:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—In speaking on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, I pay tribute to the late Hon. John Lockhart AO QC, who chaired the independent reviews of Australia’s Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, which came to be known collectively as the Lockhart review. Sadly, John Lockhart died after a short illness, less than a month after he delivered the report. When I met with him to receive the report, in my capacity as the Minister for Ageing, he described his role as chair of this review as one of the most interesting projects in his career—and John Lockhart had a long and distinguished career.
John Lockhart practised at the Sydney bar between 1960 and 1978. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1973. He was appointed to the Federal Court in 1978 and retired from that judicial office in 1999. He then became Executive Director of the Asian Development Bank from 1999 to 2002 and was a member of the appellate body of the World Trade Organisation from 2002. He was, in my view, one of Australia’s pre-eminent legal minds, and he was ideally suited to this task that the Australian government had asked of him.
His fellow committee members said he brought to the committee both objectivity and wisdom, derived from his long experience at the bar and on the bench. He constantly challenged them to explain their thoughts in a way that ‘non-experts’ could understand. He was always courteous, welcoming and empathetic to those who made submissions to the review. He understood there remained a wide range of deeply held views on the difficult issues considered by the committee. His last official act in chairing the review process and finalising the report of the review highlighted his intellect, his compassion and his humanity.
John Lockhart’s committee included some of Australia’s pre-eminent scientists, including gastroenterologist Professor Barry Marshall, who was awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize during his tenure on the committee; renowned neuroscientist Professor Peter Schofield; neurologist Associate Professor Pamela McCombe; and haematologist and clinical ethicist Associate Professor Ian Kerridge. Complementing these appointments was renowned lawyer and ethicist Professor Loane Skene. In conducting their review, the committee consulted widely and considered more than 1,000 written submissions, heard more than 100 personal representations, consulted with state and territory governments and met with people from all around Australia. The committee’s report and its 54 recommendations reflect the integrity with which the review was conducted and the careful consideration given to the scientific evidence and ethical views that were put forward.
In addition to the types of stem cell research currently permitted, the Lockhart review proposed the legalising of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic cloning. The report of the Lockhart review is a powerful legacy. I have strongly recommended it to all members and senators as a document to guide their decision on this difficult topic.
We are faced with an ethical dilemma. This bill poses challenges to us: to define a human life and the point at which a group of cells can be described or defined as a human being. The bill also challenges us to consider the sacrifices we, individually and as a society, are prepared to make to discover treatments and possible cures for many chronic diseases and injuries. For many people, stem cell therapy offers the only hope of cure, particularly for people with diabetes, cystic fibrosis and leukaemia and those with spinal cord injuries. I have had a particular interest in stem cell research and Australia’s regulatory framework governing such research in terms of my current responsibilities as minister for science and in my former capacity as Minister for Ageing, during which time I instituted the review and, in June 2005, announced the composition of the Lockhart committee. Each state and territory government approved the committee appointments.
We know that adult stem cells are found in many organs and tissues of the body, where their main function is to replace cells that have died. These cells can be extracted from the bone marrow of patients or compatible donors, and are routinely used to treat diseases such as leukaemia. Umbilical cord blood is a particularly rich source of adult stem cells which may yield useful clinical applications. Embryonic stem cells have the unique potential to develop into all cell types in the body. In Australia, embryonic stem cells are derived from human embryos left over from IVF programs which have been donated for research by the couple for whom they were created.
The Australian government recognises the potential health benefits of stem cell therapies and has generously supported stem cell research by providing almost $100 million for the Australian Stem Cell Centre under the Backing Australia’s Ability program and a further $5.5 million under the Major National Research Facilities Program. Much of this funding is provided through the Australian Research Council and the Department of Education, Science and Training. In 2006 the National Health and Medical Research Council allocated around $40 million, or nine per cent, of its research budget to stem cell research. This year the government also announced an additional commitment of $22 million over four years to fund the National Adult Stem Cell Research Centre at Griffith University in Queensland.
During the 1990s, advances in in vitro fertilisation and related techniques highlighted the need for governments to responsibly address the ethical issues relating to human reproductive technologies and associated research. This government, the Australian government, was one of the first governments in the world to address these issues by passing two acts, the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002. In conjunction with complementary state legislation, these acts provide a nationally consistent framework governing this area of research and medicine.
The framework permits research using excess donated IVF embryos under a strict licensing framework overseen by the National Health and Medical Research Council. In addition to issuing licences, the committee examines and reviews research protocols relating to the use of embryonic and non-embryonic human stem cells. To date, the NHMRC has issued nine licences for projects to improve IVF technologies and stem cell research. Several human embryonic stem cell lines have been derived for medical research in Australia.
Global developments in stem cell research have proceeded on four fronts. The first is the discovery of better methods for growing and maintaining human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory. The second is advances in the methods to drive embryonic stem cells along particular pathways—for example, to develop into muscle, brain or pancreas cells. The third is the demonstration of the capabilities of human embryonic stem cells in at least five animal models of human disease. The fourth is the isolation of many new embryonic stem cell lines and the establishment of international collaborative stem cell banks and networks for sharing cell lines and techniques.
Researchers have improved the conditions in which embryonic stem cells are grown, and the type of cells into which they can grow. These advances are very important for the development of safe and effective embryonic stem cell based treatments for patients. Researchers have also been addressing major challenges around the generation of clinically acceptable human embryonic stem cells and the production of medically relevant tissue cells from human embryonic stem cells tested in animal systems.
Progress has also been made in using embryonic stem cell in cell based screening for new drugs, for toxicology assays, for identifying molecules involved in stem cell self-renewal and for differentiation into tissue cells. Within the last few weeks, University of New South Wales scientist Professor Bernie Tuch demonstrated that tumour formation can be prevented by encasing stem cells in microscopic capsules made from seaweed extract. Professor Tuch said that this would remove one of the major impediments to the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells.
Significant challenges remain, and it may well be many years before the full potential of stem cell based therapies are realised. Nevertheless, these are exciting times in terms of the breadth and depth of human endeavour. I am proud that Australian researchers are making a major contribution to such groundbreaking research. The eminent members of the Lockhart review made their recommendations after careful consideration of the medical and ethical issues, and I respect the judgement and recommendations of these outstanding Australians.
The hopes of many injured and sick Australians and their families rest with stem cell researchers and, while we do not currently know whether that research will eventually deliver the ‘miracle’ that many hope for, I believe we should support the work of these researchers. It will be through their work that the scientific research of the 21st century will transform all of our lives. As in centuries past, science will again be the key to our success, our progress—as long as the world remains open, endlessly modifiable, unprejudiced. I cannot in all conscience stand in the way of the only ray of hope available to sufferers of devastating and debilitating disease and injury. In this instance, science, for me, has a moral authority as well as an intellectual authority. I support the bill.
60
13:29:00
Barresi, Phillip, MP
ZJ6
Deakin
LP
1
0
Mr BARRESI
—In 2002, when we first debated the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill, I came to my position after much anguish and eventually supported the embryo bill while opposing the human cloning provisions. I stated at the time:
Whatever we decide on this bill, we will be back to debate the next challenge that science throws up at us.
I further observed:
... the issue of cloning for therapeutic research will make its way back into the public debate.
In the space of just four years, we have moved from clearly rejecting the concept and science of cloning to a place where we are actively considering permitting this to occur. To make it more palatable, we are asked not to think of it in terms of cloning. Scientists have given us a form of new words—somatic cell nuclear transfer—which can be used to cloak their ultimate intention.
I supported the original bill in 2002, but today I find the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 a far more troubling proposition, and I envy those who have arrived at their decision so easily. The prospect of finding a cure for the most debilitating of illnesses and diseases is one which we should all as members of the human race strive for. Science and scientists will continue to do this no matter what we decide here today. It is in the nature of science to push the boundaries, to call for less regulation and to seek greater freedom for research. It is the responsibility of us as legislators to respond to such calls by being mindful of the ethical considerations.
Unfettered scientific research is a proposition that few in any civilised society would support. Yet what we find today, just four years later, is a call to go another step closer to eventual human cloning, no matter what safeguards we are told are built into this bill or, for that matter, the title of the bill itself. Included in these safeguards is the protection of those women who may be susceptible to exploitation in what my view would become an inevitable market for donor eggs. My concern is that the ultimate cumulative change derived from permitting a series of small gradual steps will be far beyond anything we would deem appropriate in one large move. When it comes to those proposed changes, we must be aware of the absolute potential of the sum of the parts.
Our scientific community are seeking to have a moratorium lifted so as to allow them to undertake research that this place determined only recently should not take place. In reaching my decision to oppose this bill, I had the opportunity to listen to many of the contributions from my colleagues. I note in particular the contribution of the member for Moore, Dr Mal Washer, and also that of my Senate colleague Senator Alan Eggleston—both medical practitioners and each taking opposing positions. I found Senator Eggleston’s exhortation that we are being rushed into this decision—and that even the scientists feel that we as legislators are poorly informed and not fully aware of the consequences of our decision—compelling. We have allowed the highly emotive plea that a cure is just around the corner to overcome the most basic ethical considerations, and we have allowed ourselves to be blindsided by a biotechnology industry that will go on calling for less and less regulation.
I consider the author of this bill, Senator Kay Patterson, a close personal friend. I am convinced that her intentions in presenting this bill for consideration are genuine, yet I cannot support her arguments in this matter. A number of my colleagues have based their arguments on their view of the beginning of life. I have no desire or intention to revisit them as part of this debate. My primary reason for saying this is that this is not a bill about the value or efficacy of reproductive technologies. However, I would like to note that while sperm is not involved in the creation of a cloned embryo, I also recognise the argument that sperm is merely the vehicle to transport nuclear material and is easily replaced by other scientific means within the laboratory setting.
For me to vote in favour of lifting the prohibition, as outlined in this bill, I would require a number of conditions to be met. The first is that I would have to be convinced that there is an urgent need to review the guidelines, and I do not believe that this case has been made. We were assured during the previous debates that there were substantial numbers of human embryos in frozen storage in IVF clinics available for research, including the extraction of embryonic stem cell lines. The National Health and Medical Research Council has reported that there were 104,830 embryos in frozen storage in 2003, and, as at 31 March 2006, only 122 excess assisted reproductive technology embryos had been used for the derivation of human embryonic stem cells. I do not believe that the demand is as pressing as some supporters of this legislation have presented. We are being rushed into a decision. The argument that other nations have embraced such research is not a compelling one. To accept that argument is to make all our policy considerations subordinate to international legislative action. We do not do it in relation to other policy areas and we should not do it here.
The second condition is that the gains to be made from lifting the prohibition would be massive and realised in the short term. I ardently believe that cures and treatments need to be found for diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, degenerative neural conditions and diabetes. I have received heart-rending appeals from sufferers of these conditions and their family members claiming that somatic cell nuclear transfer offers their only hope for a cure. It is this that has presented me with the biggest problem. It is also the overwhelming reason why I voted in favour of the 2002 bill—but not so now.
Publicly and consistently the supporters of this bill and the science it champions appeal to the community’s sense of compassion and proclaim that a cure is just around the corner. Yet behind the closed doors of their labs and among themselves the scientists, like Australian of the Year Professor Ian Frazer, talk openly about preliminary treatments being available at best in 75 years time. The supporters of this technology need to come clean with the people of Australia. It is unfair to sufferers and their families to inflate the effectiveness of this science in its current form and to deliberately foreshorten the time lines for the delivery of these cures.
In opposing this bill I am no less distraught when faced with friends or constituents who are seeking the cure to their illnesses. I have paid close attention to the letters, emails and phone calls that have come into my office. This contact from the people of Deakin has been both in support of and in opposition to this bill. I would like to thank all of those who have taken time to share their points of view with me. I respect their views and I trust they will respect my eventual decision.
There will be criticism from some who will wonder how I can support the use of spare IVF embryos while opposing the provisions in this bill. As I mentioned at the outset, I was troubled by this point in the 2002 bill but eventually supported it as the spare embryos would have been destroyed. But to create an embryo, be it a second-class embryo, in order to destroy it is to ask for support that I cannot give. The creation of an embryo in order to destroy it is one situation in scientific incremental steps that I am not willing to support. I acknowledge that I may be on the losing side in this vote. If that be the case, I am at least comforted to note that the bill does have severe punitive measures for wayward researchers.
While unable to support this bill, I would like to commend Senator Patterson for her work. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the work and contributions of all who were part of the Lockhart review. It is a pity that this bill does not call for a similar review process to take place. It is after much careful consideration that I am unable to support this bill.
62
13:39:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
1
0
Mr KEENAN
—We live in a world that can sometimes seem to be moving forward at an alarming rate. Science and technology advance around us at an extraordinary speed. Naturally, as these advances are made, new ethical dilemmas arise that challenge this parliament to come up with a framework within which these new technologies can be exploited. This is the second time in the life of this parliament that we have been called upon to make a decision according to our conscience about an issue that has substantially divided the community as to its morality. As in the RU486 debate, the issue of therapeutic cloning has led many of my constituents to contact me to let me know what they think about the issue. There is no question that views on both sides of this debate are very deeply held and, although I have not done a scientific count, there is no question in my mind that of the constituents who contacted me many more oppose the passage of this bill than support it. I have found this a very difficult issue on which to form a view. Indeed, it was only over the weekend—a lot of which I spent reading as much as possible about the topic, including the Lockhart review and the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs—that I came to a conclusion about how to vote on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006.
On most of the bills I have voted on since being elected in 2004, I have had a strong sense that the position I have taken is the correct one. Although I will be voting for this bill, I still have substantial hesitations about doing so. I can only say to the electors of Stirling that I have researched this issue as extensively as I can and I have made a judgement based on the evidence and according to my own conscience. I know that my position today will disappoint many of my constituents. It will disappoint many friends of mine who strongly oppose this bill. But I thank my constituents and my friends in Stirling who have made the effort to let me know their views. In return, I will be forwarding them copies of my remarks today, and I would like to do them the courtesy of explaining how I came to my position.
It has not been easy, as a layman, to digest all the concepts that are involved in this debate. I chose not to attend the various briefings offered by proponents on either side of this argument and I made an effort to do my own research to properly understand the decision we are being called upon to make.
One factor that weighed heavily on my mind was the composition of the Lockhart Review Committee and the experience of its members. This legislation gives effect to their recommendations and I think it is useful to understand who was behind them. All six members of the committee were very distinguished Australians with impressive records in the fields of science, law and, very importantly, ethics. They were drawn from across Australia and from differing fields. It is worth while noting that not all were scientists. After looking through the review I was impressed by the arguments they put forward and I believe that the committee did its best to navigate what is obviously a moral minefield. I gave the views of the committee a lot of significance when coming to my own conclusions.
I believe that the job of legislating is up to this parliament. Occasionally people express to me the view that perhaps these things are best left to experts, but I absolutely reject that. I believe that this parliament is the proper place to adjudicate community standards on contentious issues. But I think part of that process is receiving this expert advice and, as I said, I gave great weight to the conclusions that were drawn by the Lockhart committee. I believe that these conclusions achieve a reasonable outcome in allowing research that may lead to life-saving discoveries with the community’s obvious desire to make sure this research is done within clearly defined parameters.
The Lockhart review recommended that certain practices be outlawed whilst recommending that certain practices be allowed. Human cloning, along with other questionable practices that are widely condemned throughout the community—specifically the use of animal ova in somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT—will be outlawed. What will be allowed is therapeutic cloning, SCNT, and this technology has enormous potential to alleviate human suffering.
I want to take a minute to highlight what exactly this SCNT is. It is where the nucleus of a person’s cell—for example, a skin cell—is removed and placed into an unfertilised ovum that has had its nucleus removed. This egg now contains the donor’s DNA. It is subsequently chemically and electrically stimulated, which causes it to divide and form what I suppose could be described as a group of cells. Contained within this group of cells are a number of embryonic stem cells that are capable of forming any of the tissues in the human body. This provides enormous potential to cure particular ailments or to alleviate some of the suffering that is associated with them—although I stress that it is only potential, and I take note of some people’s comments that they believe that this potential has been oversold.
But the potential alone—the potential to alleviate the symptoms of diseases such as diabetes, osteoporosis and motor neurone disease, and to alleviate the effects of spinal cord or brain damage, muscular dystrophy or stroke—is enough for me to believe that these are research avenues that must be pursued even if they ultimately prove fruitless.
I am sure that everyone in this House has had personal experience with people suffering from one or more of these diseases. To see a loved one who has been ravaged by the effects of a stroke or to watch a friend slowly succumb to the indignities of motor neurone disease is a horrific experience for all involved and, of course, for the person who is directly suffering. Although other areas of research also hold the potential to help, it is true that SCNT has so far produced some of the best results and some of the most productive glimpses of what might be possible in the future.
I am convinced that embryonic stem cells provide different and better avenues to advance medical research in ways that adult stem cells simply cannot. I cannot, in all conscience, see this parliament close lines of research that offer the potential to alleviate so much suffering. I believe that that potential is just too great. Although I will be voting for this bill, I understand and I have sympathy for those who will be voting against it. A lot of the opposition revolves around definitions of what properly constitutes human life and ideas about when life begins. This is really at the heart of this debate today.
Obviously, it would be impossible for me—or anyone in this chamber, I am sure—to accept that the collection of cells we are discussing today actually constitutes a human life and then vote for this bill. The idea that we would create a life to then destroy it is completely unacceptable. But I believe that what we are discussing here today can best be understood as human cellular material, not a human life. The collection of cells, which is about the size of a grain of sand, does not have the potential to become a human being. It has never been in contact with sperm. It could not be implanted into a woman with a view to growing into a life. Most importantly, it does not contain the primitive streak which is the first real sign of life. As someone who was raised a Catholic, I fully understand that this is a deeply offensive view to many people, but it is my considered view.
This has been a debate of the highest quality in this parliament and I have tried very hard to listen to as many speakers as I could. I hope, regardless of the outcome that finally emerges from this debate, that the Australian people can feel reassured that the issue has been given the weighty consideration that it obviously deserves. I will be voting for the bill, although, as I said, not without reservation. But I believe that the potential for this new technology to alleviate human suffering is just far too great to be ignored.
64
13:50:00
Hatton, Michael, MP
LN6
Blaxland
ALP
0
0
Mr HATTON
—We are in a House of Representatives, but in the modern parliaments that we have experienced—in modern parliaments all over the world—the very idea of representative government is a foreign one; it belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. This chamber is not simply composed of a number of disparate individuals who will make up their own minds on every bill that comes before the House, or who will simply cluster on the basis of whatever their perceived interests are—either sectional or otherwise—in relation to a series of bills that come before the House.
We are party elements within this parliament: the Liberal Party and the National Party for the coalition, the Labor Party and even those few Independents—lone souls that they are down the other end. We still operate within a structure where a determined position is taken on either side and, in order to gain government in this House and to have that supported in the Senate, we need to aggregate a series of opinions, we need to put forward public policy on a range of different matters and we need to involve ourselves in fundamental compromises about whatever our views are on a range of subjects to come to a social view—not just an individual or individualistic one—which the party expresses.
But when we come to debates such as this, where there is a conscience vote, every single member of this House has to make up their own mind and stand their own ground and be truly representative. It is impossible for them to represent every single individual in their electorate on the basis of reflecting the differences of opinion that those people have. You cannot contain within yourself both the yes and the no to a bill. You have to make a determination on the balance of your research and the balance of your response to whatever stimuli there are, whether it is to your constituents or interests within the community from the churches, ethical groups, and the scientific community. You have to make a determination, a judgment, and then stand by that.
For good or ill, on both sides of the House, people have split one way or another in relation to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and the debate, as lengthy as it has been—as with similar bills such as those relating to matters that we are fundamentally dealing with here: the RU486 debate, the euthanasia debates and the debates in relation to abortion—goes to the very core of what it means to be a human being living within a society. A society has a vast range of religious, ethical and scientific opinions both now in the 21st century and stretching back through the centuries. We are conditioned by the people we work with, by the people we represent and by our upbringing, but we are brought to this place and this debate and we simply have no choice but to make fundamental choices about what is right and wrong and how we should proceed.
These are the healthiest debates that I have experienced in the time I have been in this parliament—and of course the most difficult. They are the most heart-rending for people who are outside the parliament because the expectation that people in this parliament will vote one way or another will have dramatic implications for people. It either concerns their fundamental beliefs about the nature of life, religion or about an ethical or moral approach to life, or concerns their fundamental views conditioned by the experience of friends, husbands, lovers, wives or children who have had their lives encumbered by a range of incurable diseases—seeing them suffer and not suffer just once or twice but suffer day by day and they are unable to help them or do anything about it. We can offer compassion, empathy, understanding and help, but in this parliament we are in a position to offer legislation which could attempt to ameliorate the condition of those who suffer and also to hold out a hope. It may not be now. It may not be in a year’s time. It may not be—but I do not think it will be this long—in 75 or 100 years time. There is the hope that what we determine today may be the initiator for a better life to come, unencumbered by the most gross diseases and conditions that humans have had to suffer from.
If you take simply the basis of a moral or religious stand in relation to this you can quite easily come, particularly someone from a Catholic background, to a point from which on an ethical basis you should go no further—that the previous bill should not have been allowed; that this bill should not be allowed—and decide that there are strict parameters in terms of how guidelined and straitjacketed a person should be in regard to the bill before the House. I am not someone who accepts that approach. That is just too simple and it is too easy.
The thing that drives me in relation to matters such as this is my personal experience of people who are suffering and have suffered. For those people, it is a belief—even if there is that spark of hope that will not be fulfilled because the work done either on adult stem cells or on embryonic stem cells will not give them a chance to resolve their issues—that prospectively, for the whole of humanity and what is available to it in the future, cures for the fundamental blights that this research looks to solve may in fact be achieved.
Cast your minds back just a few years to the work done by two significant researchers and the effect that they had. With his polio vaccine Jonas Salk saved tens of millions of lives—lives that were encumbered and crippled. People like Alan Marshall, who wrote the book I Can Jump Puddles, gave us a clear view of what it was to be a young polio victim. The scientific work done by Salk and others led to the eradication of this dreadful childhood disease.
The work done by Fleming and, in particular, Florey, the great Australian researcher—Fleming just finding the penicillin mould—led to hundreds of millions of people having their lives saved. Scientific research has been proven time and time again. But there is always a hazard. There is lots of research that has failed, lots of research that has really gone nowhere and lots of research that has lead to dead ends. But if you do not take the steps you will not fix the problems.
In relation to this bill and the one that was previous to it, there is a fundamental undergirding—a safety net in regard to how we proceed. I know the member for Deakin argued that the incremental changes suggested in this bill and others will lead inexorably down a path where we will not have a moral or ethical girding to stop full cloning of human beings. I simply do not think that that is at issue here. I can understand the hesitancy and I can understand the fact that there is a perceived great danger of that, but it is up to this parliament, and the parliaments and congresses of the world, to stress as strongly as we have when other bills have come before us that we are entirely against the cloning of human beings—but not against the copying of a cell to create lines of cells that could lead to therapies for people who have diseases that are unutterably bad.
I taught English and history in a Catholic school. I taught Warwick Love. I have spoken before about Warwick in this House. The reason I spoke about him was that that young lawyer who emerged from De La Salle, Bankstown—one of the best and brightest students I taught—died from cystic fibrosis. If there had been a cure as a result of these kinds of therapies, then Warwick Love may not have died. He was amongst the best and brightest children I ever taught. There was no hope for Warwick. He was burdened by something that shattered his life, yet his spark, hope, openness, generosity and cleverness shone throughout his 26 years. I am voting for Warwick Love and all of those people who need the chance to not live a life encumbered by that.
I am also voting for Paul Brock. Paul Brock has been a member of the Australian Labor Party for 30 years. I have been a member for 39 years. Paul Brock taught English and history for 11 years. I taught those subjects for close on 10 years. Paul Brock was a Marist brother for 15 years. I was in the De La Salle juniorate for two. Paul Brock was a lecturer in English method at the University of New England and taught me English method in my Dip. Ed. He is a fantastic teacher, but he has been cut down by motor neurone disease. He gave evidence to the Senate and to a number of different groups that met with regard to the bill before us now. He wrote to me with regard to this. He has written to other people. He is someone, like Stephen Hawking, whose life has been dramatically changed because he is suffering from motor neurone disease, and he put in a plea for people in his position.
It is not their fault that there is a genetic problem that has caused the difficulty that they have. It is within our power to give hope to them and to others that blighting diseases such as these may be eradicated from the face of the earth and then in future human beings may not have to suffer the terrible agony of someone with motor neurone disease—to be completely intellectually alive, as Stephen Hawking and Dr Paul Brock are, and yet have their body waste away in front of their very eyes, for their lives to be foreshortened in ways that we just cannot imagine. However, their courage and tenacity is a clarion call to others and to us to take their position into account and to have a moral and ethical position that is based on whether we believe that we are a society of individuals who live in association or that we are just disparate individuals and do not actually have a commonality which binds us together to have that concern, love and compassion for others. I think that is the core ground on which this rests.
I would like to quote some part of what Paul wrote to me, because it is compelling, instructive and a fundamental, clear example of what this is all about. He says:
Having been a Marist Brother in the Catholic Church for over 15 years, I know a hell of a lot more theology and moral philosophy than Tony Abbott ever picked up in his year or two at the Seminary!!
As you know, I am now totally paralysed by Motor Neurone Disease. Mind you, having been diagnosed in 1996 and given 3 - 5 years to live, I am a very rare long time survivor of what is still currently an incurable and terminal disease (Professor Stephen Hawking is the most famous long term survivor). While therapeutic cloning definitely does not promise any overnight miracle cures, it equally definitely offers the most exciting and scientifically and ethically reputable basis for research which will help us better understand the cause, point towards some ways of improving the quality and duration of life, and eventually lead to a cure for this mongrel disease.
He then indicates that he is still working in the New South Wales department of education. He then says that in his submission to the Senate inquiry and also more broadly he has:
... concentrated on the ethical and moral issues - gladly acknowledging my own Christian position. Further, I specifically addressed the issue of the Catholic Church’s formal opposition to stem cell research.
As I said to the Senate Inquiry, it is a mistake to assume that all religions oppose SCNT. They do not. It would also be a mistake to assume that every branch or denomination of the whole Christian faith formally condemns therapeutic cloning.
The most outspoken opposition to the 2002 Bill’s legalising stem cell research within strict protocols, and the Lockhart Review’s endorsement of SCNT, has come from some very senior people within the Catholic Church. As a Christian, with a powerful Catholic heritage, I am proud of the great achievements of the Catholic Church throughout history. The Catholic Church has had a splendid commitment to social justice and the protection of the weak from the strong in contexts of employment and workers’ rights. For example, the Papal Encyclical Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labour, written by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 at the height of the Industrial Revolution and its social and economic impact upon working people, remains one of the great statements about the rights of human beings within an industrialised society.
The magnificent care and compassion for the poor, the sick and the weak exercised by organisations like St Vincent de Paul and the many Catholic charitable organisations serving the needs of people in Third World countries help to transform our world. The Catholic Church’s contribution to education – especially, but not exclusively, to the education of the poor and the lower ‘classes’ in 19th Century Europe and both 19th and early 20th Century Australia – has been highly significant in helping to shape a better world. I am proud to be able to say that I spent 15 years of my life as a Marist Brother in a prestigious Religious Order of the Catholic Church, and that I taught in Catholic schools for nearly 11 years.
But he then goes on to say:
But the Catholic Church has also been wrong. Galileo is but the most celebrated example of the Church not only being wrong in its decisions about science, but also in savagely persecuting those who hold views that dissent from dogmatic ecclesiastical pronouncements on matters of science. In our modern era the vast majority of the Australian population does not agree with, nor abide by, the Catholic Church’s ban on contraceptive practices like the Pill. Indeed, I am confident that most Catholics in both belief and practice, dissent from the Church’s ruling on contraception. The Church’s banning of the use of condoms as part of a campaign to alleviate the scourge of AIDS is, I am sure, not supported by the vast majority of the Australian community.
He further says:
I wonder how many Catholics support the Church’s unequivocal opposition to IVF? Despite the fierce opposition of the Australian Catholic hierarchy to the proposal that excess embryos produced in IVF treatments should be allowed to be used for research purposes, with the explicit permission of the parents and under very strict scientific and ethical protocols, authoritative surveys of Australians supported the proposal which was, of course, endorsed by the Federal Parliament in a conscience vote in both Houses in 2002.
It is wrong to assert that the Catholic Church never wavers in its teachings. Even in my own lifetime, I have witnessed significant shifts in positions previously assumed by us within the Church to have been immutable. For example, as youngsters we were taught by the Church that to deliberately eat meat on a Friday, with full knowledge of what we were doing and complete freedom of will, was a mortal sin: if we died before we had gone to Confession (the Sacrament of Penance) and expressed contrition for this ‘wickedness’ and had received absolution from the priest, we would go to Hell!
Similarly, the Church taught that there was a place called Limbo where God sent the souls of those who died without being baptised but who had led a good life. This is no longer part of Catholic teaching. Back in medieval times, it was a mortal sin to practise “usury”—which was lending or borrowing money at interest. This practice has long ceased to be considered a mortal sin!
He goes on to say that he could give other examples over 400 years—it took them that long to get over Galileo, a devout Catholic. He says:
People like myself do not have the luxury of waiting for another 400 years for the Church to correct its current teaching on the science of stem cell research.
It is also worth emphasising that we live in a democratic, multicultural, multi-faithed and non-faithed society—not a theocracy, let alone a theocracy of one particular religious orientation.
In relation to the core of his argument, at the end of his argument about where he stands and what his moral and ethical ground is, there is a summary—and it is the best summary I have seen of an approach to this bill. It says:
The nub of the issue facing the House of Representatives can be put like this. the 2002 Australian legislation allowed for the creation of human embryonic stem cell lines from fertilised human eggs that have become surplus to the needs of IVF implantation—which means that they would never be implanted into the woman’s uterus. But the 2002 legislation did not allow creation of such human embryonic stem cell lines derived from an unfertilised human egg in the SCNT process, which would also never be implanted into the woman’s uterus. But this is a logically and ethically inconsistent situation. Maintaining the consistent logic of its ethical and scientific argument, the Lockhart Report recommended that legislation be drafted to allow the use of unfertilised eggs as well as the fertilised eggs for the creation of stem cell lines. The Bill passed by the Senate would enable that to happen. And that Bill also prohibits the use of animal eggs in therapeutic cloning. It warrants being passed, without amendment, by the House of Representatives this week.
I believe that this bill is in fact on the side of the angels and, in particular, of those young children who have come to this House who have type 1 diabetes. They deserve hope that their lives will not be blighted by that dreadful disease.
69
14:10:00
Baker, Mark, MP
DYK
Braddon
LP
1
0
Mr BAKER
—I rise in the House today to also discuss and be involved in the debate currently occurring in Australia concerning the proposed medical research technology utilising embryonic stem cells. International research in the field of embryonic stem cell research has initiated the debate in Australia on the medical and ethical possibilities and problems of this research. Opinion is divided in this country, and this has never been more evident than in the level of communication that has reached my office, both in favour of and against the use of embryonic stem cell research.
Members of parliament stand as a small representative number elected by the people to debate and formulate decisions on issues that directly impact on those whom we represent. The debate today centres on the use of embryonic stem cells. Either it is considered a crime against humanity or it is considered that the use of embryonic stem cells is a cure for human suffering. Correlated to this are the arguments for and against the use of surplus IVF embryos or purpose-created embryos made using nucleus substitution.
Do the benefits of possible cures for a range of diseases outweigh concerns over the destruction of embryos? Embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting an embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of the human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. Some opponents of the research also argue that this practice is a slippery slope to reproductive cloning, leading to a society of purpose-built human beings. In contrast, medical researchers in the field argue that it is necessary to pursue embryonic stem cell research because the resultant technologies are expected to have significant medical potential and that the embryos used for research are only those slated for destruction anyway. Such diverse opinions to the one research program highlight the fact that embryonic stem cell research represents a social and ethical challenge.
Economics has also come into the debate, with South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, India and other countries rapidly pioneering this new frontier. It is said that Australia is being left further and further behind in medical technology. Additionally, Australia will miss out on the revenue pool that Harvard University in 2005 equated to $US400 billion.
However, whilst this is a consideration, it is of less weight in my opinion than the social and ethical basis of this debate. The medical arguments for the use of embryonic stem cells centre on the future potential of this procedure as a cure for the more chronic and terminal illnesses. Embryonic stem cells are thought by most scientists and researchers to hold potential cures for spinal cord injuries and illnesses and sicknesses such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders and much more. Scientists see almost infinite value in the use of embryonic stem cell research to understand human development and growth and the treatment of diseases. Actual cures, however, are many years away, since research has not progressed to the point where even one cure has yet been generated by embryonic stem cell research.
Equating the numbers quoted by Harvard University to the Australian population, over 20 per cent of our community suffers from diseases that it is argued may eventually be treated more effectively or even cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Some researchers regard this as the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the advent of antibiotics. Future treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson’s patient’s brain, transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.
Those who support the use of embryonic stem cell therapy argue that it is not a pro-life argument, as the embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos which will be discarded as a part of the normal process of IVF technology. The ethical arguments against the use of embryonic stem cell therapy must also be considered in this debate. To date, the wider ethical argument against embryonic stem cell research is the destruction of human life as a result of scientists removing the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a cell taken from a living person, such as a skin cell. The result is a cloned human embryo. When stem cells are extracted from this embryo, it is destroyed. Opponents of therapeutic cloning claim this embryo is a human life that should be afforded the rights and status entailed. Much of the debate has also focused on issues like animal-human hybrids, the pressure on women to donate eggs and the possibility of purpose built humans in the future.
The research debate against the use of embryonic stem cell therapy includes the unknown outcomes from the procedure which, whilst it may deliver a cure to a defined illness, may also create tumours known as teratomas. Additionally, with the permutations in outcomes that may occur, the ability to control a procedure to deliver a precise cure or result at this stage, with current techniques, is not possible. The argument against embryonic stem cell usage also encompasses the case that adult stem cells have the potential to achieve results without the destruction of life. The reality is that adult stem cells have been used to treat people with success and have scientifically proven long-term potential.
Currently there are more than 1,000 adult stem cell based therapies in clinical trials as opposed to the nil to negligible number, depending on the research that you read, of embryonic stem cell based therapies. Whilst adult stem cells are traditionally thought of as undifferentiated cells—cells that can be used to replace other cells in the body—they are also deemed as not as versatile and not as easily cultivated as embryonic cells. However, this view is being challenged today and, to the therapy’s credit, adult stem cells have been used for the past 30 years in treating blood disorders.
Confidence in the adult stem cell therapy research over embryonic stem cell research is reinforced through evaluating the results that have been recorded in the New England Journal of Medicine, by the National Institutes of Health USA and in a wider read of European journals. All the mentioned journals contain studies of successful use of adult stem cells in the treatment of various conditions including leukaemia, heart functioning after cardiac conditions and injury repair.
Even the premise of the undifferentiated cell theory attached to adult stem cell research has been challenged and proven to be incorrect by such leading researchers as Dr Patrick Dixon and the Global Challenge genetic research team. Indeed, researchers are now finding that many cells in children and adults have extraordinary capacity to generate or stimulate growth of a wide variety of tissues, if encouraged in the right way. Professor Jonathan Slack at the University of Bath has also demonstrated how adult human liver cells can be transformed relatively easily into insulin-producing cells such as those found in the pancreas. Other proven work includes using bone marrow cells to repair brain and spinal cord injuries in mice and rats, and the same is now being done to repair heart muscle in humans.
Harvard Medical School has also contributed strongly to the case for adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cells. Trials have shown partially restored sight in animals with retinal damage. Clinical trials are expected within five years using adult stem cells as a treatment to cure blindness caused by macular degeneration—old-age blindness—which is one of the most common causes of sight loss in Australia. Within 10 years it is hoped that people will be able to be treated routinely with their own stem cells in a clinic using a two-hour process.
The reality we are now finding is that in most cells almost every gene we have is turned off but, as it turns out, not as permanently as we thought. Adult stem cell therapy holds tremendous value for the future. When reviewing all the above points, the expected rapid progress in adult stem cell research and the slower work with embryonic stem cell research, embryonic stem cell therapy is positioned at this moment as a high-risk, ethically challenging option along with therapeutic cloning.
Research and technology developments of adult stem cell therapy and current progress in tissue building and repair offer a defined pathway to achieve the cures and treatments as desired by the general community without the destruction of life. Current research incorporating new repairs using differentiated cells and, in other cases, temporary assistance in local repair processes demonstrates the flexibility of adult therapy to meet medical needs of the chronically ill and injured much more effectively than current embryonic cell therapy. It is also predicted by the research fraternity that we will see some exciting new pharmaceutical products in the near future which promise to achieve some of the same results without having to remove a single stem cell from the body. These drugs may, for example, activate bone marrow cells and encourage them to migrate to parts of the body where repairs are needed.
In conclusion, my decision reflects a fundamental commitment to preserving the value and sanctity of human life while also having a strong desire to promote vital medical treatments for the wider Australian community. Whilst I recognise the very fast pace of research developments for both adult and embryonic stem cell research, the evidence presented at this point of time does not allow me to support the legalising of embryonic stem cell therapy. I do, however, urge the parliament to maintain a vigilant and continuous review of the developments overseas, especially in light of some of the major research organisations stating publicly that technology was advancing to the stage that harvesting embryonic stem cells may be able to be undertaken without harm to the embryo. Additionally, the ability to control outcomes and the potential decrease for resulting tumours are also recorded as improving with ever-increasing research.
I also urge my colleagues to review Australia’s participation in the adult stem cell research program with a view to further supporting the spectacular results that are currently being recorded worldwide in this domain of research. The cure, treatment and management of debilitating injuries, illness and terminal conditions with a therapy that does not challenge the ethical fibre of our wider community must be the goal of all of us in this debate. Present research information clearly indicates that embryonic stem cell therapy does not satisfy this goal at present. However, alternative adult stem cell and pharmaceutical pathways do offer a balance between sustainable cures with an ethical base and an economical proven value.
72
14:23:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr DUTTON
—Can I start by acknowledging the contribution of the former speaker, a person for whom we all have a great deal of respect, who obviously has thought long and hard about this issue and who has provided a very necessary perspective to it. At the outset I would like to thank the residents of my electorate, Dickson, who have contacted me over the past few weeks to express their views on this very important but also very emotive issue. Their contributions were, in my view, well argued, often very passionate but always very civil—a quality that has, thankfully, consistently characterised the current debate both inside the parliament and outside it in the broader community. My constituents through their fervent advocacy have certainly helped me to better understand all the complexities and the many different dimensions of the issues raised by the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006.
This has not been an easy issue or an easy decision for people on either side of the debate. Scientists are split in their views. Churches and their leaders and community leaders across society are divided in their views on this issue. Representing the people of Australia in this parliament comes with a great responsibility, of course, to arrive wisely at decisions which will every day affect people in many different ways. When several years ago we were debating in this chamber a similar bill, I found it difficult to support the use and destruction of human embryos for the purpose of embryonic stem cell research. My decision in the end hinged on the fact that the embryos in question were limited in number, already in existence and destined for destruction in any case. The bill before us today represents a progression beyond the boundaries set down by the parliament four years ago. It is for this reason that in my mind there remains great uncertainty about claims made by proponents of this bill as to the outcomes that will be arrived at. It is ultimately the reason that I will not be supporting the bill that is before the House.
In closing I want to acknowledge the contribution to this debate of many community leaders, of people who have had considered views and of people who in some cases have a lifetime of experience in relation to these very important issues. One of the most important people in my consideration when arriving at my decision on this issue was Jack Yorston. Jack Yorston is a young primary school student from my electorate who suffers from type 1 diabetes. Jack was visiting the parliament only a couple of weeks ago as part of the Kids in the House process. In my mind it is an unbelievable life that Jack leads, not just for him of course, primarily, but for his family as well. There are incredible difficulties for people, particularly children, who are suffering from diseases such as type 1 diabetes.
If in my mind there was certainty as to the positive outcomes that would flow from supporting this bill to help people like Jack then it would further compound my dilemma in relation to the consideration of this speech. But I do think that some people have done themselves a disservice in relation to this debate by holding out false hope to people such as Jack that a cure might be just around the corner for diseases such as type 1 diabetes and cystic fibrosis or some of the other horrific diseases that might inflict themselves upon the children of our society. I think offering false hope, extending beyond the realms of reality exactly what might be provided to those children and those families, ultimately has provided a disservice to people who would otherwise support this bill.
I want to also as part of my conclusion acknowledge the strongly held views of many people in my electorate, as I spoke of in the opening remarks of my speech. These are people who passionately believe one way or the other in relation to this bill, and I think that is a great reflection on the way in which, as I said, this debate has been conducted in a mature way. But we do need to make sure that we consider their views in a measured fashion. When we have a situation in this country where, as I said before, scientists, people who are studying these matters on a daily basis, are unable to arrive at a position which is common to them all, it is in some cases very difficult for members of parliament to consider these very complex issues.
I want to take a moment also to thank the people in this chamber and in the other chamber who have, like me, laboured over these issues—some of whom have arrived at different outcomes but all of whom should be respected for the views that they bring to this debate. We live in a wonderful democracy where people are able to conduct these very complex and very difficult debates, and they will continue on for many years to come. But we do need to make sure, as I have been conscious of as part of this debate, that we are not facilitating a natural progression to the next stage. I think in many ways that is ultimately the dilemma that this bill before the House would provide us with into the future. I again thank all of the constituents in my electorate for their considered views. As I said earlier, it is my view that I am unable to support this bill.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being almost 2.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to yesterday. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
73
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
73
14:29:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—I inform the House that the Special Minister of State will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. He is travelling to Sweden and Norway to attend the Cisco public service summit. The Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs will be absent from question time today. He is attending a wreath-laying ceremony at the War Memorial with the President of Korea. The Minister for Defence will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
74
14:30:00
Questions Without Notice
Health Funding
74
14:30:00
74
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing entitled The blame game. I refer to the advice on health funding commissioned by the Prime Minister from Andrew Podger in 2004 which was shelved without discussion, debate or consultation in 2005. Why is the Prime Minister not even interested in examining the possible long-term solutions to the cost shift and blame shift that currently dog our national health and hospital systems?
74
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—The government did not shelve the Podger report. Indeed, a number of the recommendations from Podger were in fact picked up: not all of them, and no government is obliged to pick up every recommendation given to it, no matter how eminent the public servant may be. Indeed, many of the reforms that have been instituted in the health system over the past couple of years have involved cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states. But I am fascinated that the Leader of the Opposition continues to quote from that House of Representatives report. I understand that in evidence presented to the committee on 26 May by Associate Professor Deborah Green, the past president of the Australian Healthcare Association, which is a national body for the public health care sector, this is what she had to say. Coincidentally it echoes comments I have repeatedly made about Australia’s health system. I think both sides of politics, especially at a state level, do our health system a great deal of damage by constantly denigrating it without acknowledging the fact that with all its flaws the Australian health system is better than any in the rest of the world. This is what Associate Professor Green had to say:
... when we were talking about what is world class ... when we are overseas and get sick, where do we want to be? Almost without exception people want to come to Australia—
to come home—
So whilst I think we are actually very harsh on our own health service ... in fact, it stacks up against just about any health service in the world.
The Leader of the Opposition would do the health service and those who work in it a great service by recognising that with all its faults it is infinitely superior to the health system of any comparable country.
Economy
74
74
14:33:00
Kelly, Jackie, MP
GK6
Lindsay
LP
1
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. How have Australian families benefited from a strong economy, and what are the threats to the policies on which this prosperity is based?
74
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the member for Lindsay, whose constituents have certainly benefited over the last 10½ years from a strong economy. There were some documents released this morning called the national accounts. Amongst many other things, the national accounts showed that real wages have now risen by 17.9 per cent. Can I say that again, Mr Speaker: by 17.9 per cent since 1996, compared to a reduction of 1.7 per cent in real terms when Labor was last in government. In addition, there are nearly two million additional extra jobs since 1996. All of these results are good news for Australian families. Of course, there was introduction of Work Choices, which includes as a key element the introduction of Australian workplace agreements. Incidentally, in November the number of new workplace agreements signed was a record, at 33,927, and in the seven months that have gone by since Work Choices came in 181,671 AWAs have been entered into. In a year’s time there will be almost one million Australian workplace agreements. Yet this morning the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has indicated in an interview in the West Australian newspaper that the opposition will stick with the union demanded promise of abolishing AWAs if it is elected.
In other words, one million Australian families are going to have their working lives thrown into chaos by the decision of a Labor government, if it were elected, to abolish AWAs. This will hurt Australian families. It will not only hurt Australian families; it will hurt the industries of Western Australia. The mining industry of Western Australia dreads the idea of AWAs being abolished because AWAs lie at the heart of the success, the prosperity and the progress of the mining industry of Western Australia. We are constantly told by the current spokesman on industrial relations, the member for Perth, that all our economic prosperity comes out of the mining industry. That is not correct, but I certainly acknowledge that the mining industry has been a very important part of it. So far from AWAs being bad news for families, they provide families with higher incomes, the flexibility of working from home, the flexible use of annual leave and sick leave, job sharing, and flexible start and finish times. Yet because the unions want it, the Labor Party would sweep all of this away and throw the working lives of a million Australians into chaos.
Economy
75
75
14:36:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question, again, is to the Prime Minister and refers also to today’s national accounts. Does the Prime Minister recall stating in a speech to the National Press Club back in December 1997:
We are—above all—a high growth government. The overriding aim of our extensive economic reform agenda is to deliver Australia an annual growth rate of over 4 per cent on average during the decade to 2010.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that today’s national accounts show that GDP grew by a lowly 2.2 per cent over the last 12 months and an average of barely three per cent in the first six years of this decade? Prime Minister, haven’t the government’s economic policies failed to equip Australia to be the long-term, high-growth economy that we need to be to maintain our long-term economic prosperity?
75
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—The answer is no. It is true that the national accounts showed growth for the year to the September quarter of 2.2 per cent. It largely—not entirely—reflected a decline in farm production of 10 per cent. That is due to something that we all abhor and that is the drought. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition has an answer to that which has escaped the rest of his 20 million fellow Australians. We have 10 per cent being taken out of farm production so that farm GDP is 11.4 per cent lower over the year. There is a feature article accompanying the national accounts, and the ABS suggests that the drought will directly subtract about half of one percentage point from overall growth in 2006-07. That is a matter of very great concern, particularly to those farmers around Australia, which this side of the House proudly represents, who are grappling with the drought. The economy in September was badly affected by the drought.
In relation to growth and economic achievement, nothing that the Leader of the Opposition draws comfort from in these accounts—what he apparently thinks is comfort is largely caused by the impact of the drought—alters the fact that we have now had 16 years of continuous economic growth and we have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. The problem is not finding jobs for people who want them; increasingly, it is finding the workers for the jobs that are vacant. That is the dilemma of the modern economy which has been created by the economic policies of this government. It is a terrible dilemma.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—And it’s all your own work!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Yes, it is all my own work—thank you. The fact that we have a 30-year low in unemployment is my own work and I am proud of my work. I am proud of the fact that we have a 30-year low in unemployment. I am also proud of the fact that the successive reforms of this government in taxation and industrial relations, in particular, have laid the groundwork for future prosperity. We do want a long-term growth economy and that is why we are in favour of industrial relations reform. The fact that Labor oppose it means they do not believe in long-term growth for the Australian economy.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
76
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
76
14:40:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Ian Cameron, a former member for Maranoa. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
76
Questions Without Notice
Infrastructure
76
76
14:41:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
1
Mrs GASH
—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House how the Australian government is working with other levels of government to provide better infrastructure for their communities, particularly in my electorate of Gilmore?
76
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. The member for Gilmore knows from first-hand experience what our government has had to do over the last 10 years to ensure that the appropriate level of investment is made into infrastructure across regional Australia, whether it be the responsibility of the federal government, state governments or local governments. I instance the allocation of funding to Main Road 92 in the member’s electorate. She fought hard to get funding for that road, which is, incidentally, a state road—one that is fundamentally the responsibility of the New South Wales government.
Just remember that the AusLink program that we now have in place, which is being funded to the tune of $15 billion, is one that expects a certain level of cooperation and commitment from all levels of government. We have seen too often over the years an abrogation of responsibility by state governments. It is a stark reality. For example, we have the New South Wales government at the moment using the excuse of the lead-up to their state election to decide whether they should put some priority planning towards the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Brisbane. Guess what? This government, the Howard government, did it 10 years ago when we recognised it as a road of national importance. The New South Wales government are only just catching up now. It is the same category that we put Main Road 92 into a number of years ago.
The point is that in the national interest all levels of government must make appropriate levels of investment in their areas of responsibility. There are other examples. Since 1999 the federal government has had money available to upgrade Paddys Bridge on the Hume Highway. This is a bridge that is restricting the capacity of the road transport industry in efficiency gains and greater competitiveness. Only now, seven years later, is New South Wales moving on this upgrade. These are all facts—this is not a blame game; these are all facts. If we are going to point the finger at anybody we are going to ensure that all levels of government shoulder their responsibilities across Australia, whether it is investment in infrastructure, education or health.
Another example is in Tasmania. The Bridgewater Bridge is a critical link between Hobart and the north of the island. Our government has had $100 million on the table for the last five years to upgrade this critical link in Tasmania. The Tasmanian government in the lead-up to the Tasmanian election tried to get that money transferred onto their state roads—their responsibility. And the people of Australia need to know this. They need to know what is going on at the state level. So if the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about a true partnership in the federal structure of this country, he should talk to his mates at a state level to ensure that they shoulder their fair share of the responsibilities in the provision of infrastructure, the investment in infrastructure and the services they are responsible for across Australia.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
77
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
77
14:45:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Saban Disli, member of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, accompanied by the Turkish ambassador. On behalf of the House, I extend to them a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
77
Questions Without Notice
Economy
77
77
14:45:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is again to the Prime Minister and relates to his previous answer in which he placed all blame on the drought for low growth figures released today. Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that the national accounts today show that productivity has not grown for the past 2½ years and has in fact fallen by 1.7 per cent in the last six months?
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Prime Minister, don’t these figures show that your industrial relations policies are failing to deliver the productivity required to deliver tomorrow’s prosperity?
Honourable members interjecting—
77
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—No, it is not a good question because, firstly, I did not attribute all of the result to the drought. I made that very clear. But, significantly, if farm production is down by 10 per cent and if it is 11.4 per cent down over the year, it is a major factor. In relation to productivity, the fall in the quarter of 0.4 per cent is largely accounted for by the large employment growth of 1.2 per cent or 117,000 people in the September quarter. So I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should read the accounts more closely.
Economy
77
77
14:46:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
1
Mr CIOBO
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of today’s national accounts release? What does this information indicate about the economic outlook for Australia?
77
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Moncrieff for his question. Today’s September quarter national accounts showed the Australian economy continuing to grow, and in the non-farm economy growing very solidly indeed—
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. That will be removed from the gallery.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—In the non-farm sector, GDP grew by 0.6 per cent, to be 2.6 per cent higher through the year. The national accounts feature article, ‘Impact of drought on agricultural production’, suggests that the drought will directly subtract around 0.5 per cent from overall economic growth in 2006-07. Let me say that that is direct subtraction. Of course, it is not just the fall in farm production that has an effect on the economy. Once farm production falls, transport to the rural economy, wholesaling from the rural economy and services to the rural economy also detract. The detraction will be greater than 0.5 per cent once you take into account indirect effects as well as the direct effects.
To give you some idea of the effect of that, Mr Speaker, the ABS notes that production of wheat, barley and canola could fall by over 60 per cent, and agricultural income in the September quarter fell by 51.7 per cent. A 51.7 per cent fall in agricultural income is a very, very substantive fall indeed.
Outside the rural sector, however, consumer demand was considered to be at a moderate and sustainable pace. There is evidence of some recovery in relation to the building sector. Production in the mining sector increased quite substantially. We saw a redirection of the economy from the domestic sector towards the export sector—a welcome reshift.
Not only were incomes high—and the Prime Minister has already referred to the fact that the jump in incomes now means that the increase in real wages has been 17.9 per cent under this government—but corporate profits reached the highest share of GDP on record. That means we have a very, very profitable business sector in Australia which is supporting increased job creation—the strongest job creation we have seen in a generation. Indeed, in the last year, 245,000 new jobs were created in Australia. That means 245,000 of our fellow Australians are now in work as a consequence.
In the national accounts, measures of inflation were around three per cent lower than the consumer price index. The consumer price index has been knocked around by one-off factors in recent quarters. We would expect those to unwind in the quarters to come. What we have here is a picture of an economy which is still growing strongly in the longest expansion that Australia has ever experienced, knocked around by a very significant drought which is affecting rural production, but made up for by other sectors of the economy which are continuing to keep the economy growing and jobs being created.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
78
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
78
14:51:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mrs Siti Nurbaya, the Secretary-General of the Indonesian DPD. On behalf of the House I extend to her a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
78
Questions Without Notice
Economy
78
78
14:51:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to my previous question. Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that the government has claimed its Work Choices policies would lead to higher productivity? Prime Minister, doesn’t page 24 of today’s national accounts show in black and white that market sector productivity slumped by 1.7 per cent in the last six months?
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt is warned!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—What else does the Prime Minister have in mind to blame today for this continued slump in productivity?
78
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—If the Leader of the Opposition had followed carefully what I have been saying over the last few months about Work Choices, the point I have made is that over the last seven months, despite all the warnings made by the Labor Party, employment has continued to grow, wages have continued and, on top of that, strikes have been at a lower level—the lowest since 1913. Clearly, the benefits of Work Choices, as they flow through the economy, will lead to higher productivity in the years ahead.
Fiji
79
79
14:52:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
1
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of developments in Fiji over the last 24 hours? How is the government proposing to respond to these most recent changes?
79
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr DOWNER
—First, I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question and for his interest. The government strongly condemns the unlawful overthrow of a democratically elected government in Fiji. Yesterday was not just a tragic day for Fiji; it was also a tragic day for the Pacific. Commodore Bainimarama claims to have assumed executive power and he claims that he has dismissed the democratically elected Prime Minister and government.
The fact is that the actions of Commodore Bainimarama are illegal and he should ultimately be held accountable for acting illegally in the way that he has done and those responsible for the coup should ultimately be punished for their actions. After all, let us not forget that Commodore Bainimarama claimed that those responsible for the coup in 2000 should be held accountable for their actions in conducting an illegal coup and breaking the law of Fiji. Commodore Bainimarama and his colleagues, likewise, should be held accountable and ultimately should be punished.
One of the first symptoms of a dictatorship is to muzzle free speech, which is precisely what Commodore Bainimarama has done. The Fiji Times newspaper was effectively shut down yesterday when its editors quite rightly, quite appropriately and quite bravely refused to accept any intimidation by the military, who demanded that they should be able to censor that newspaper. We condemn in the strongest of terms the way that newspaper and the media generally are being treated in Fiji. We will certainly do what we can to encourage the restoration of freedom of speech, freedom of association and other fundamental freedoms in Fiji.
This morning I called in the Fiji High Commissioner, who I know is deeply disturbed and distressed about what has happened to his beautiful country. I informed him that Australia was now introducing a series of sanctions against Fiji. We will impose travel bans to Australia on Fijian military personnel and their direct families. We will also ban from Australia members of any unconstitutional, illegal government that Commodore Bainimarama chooses to appoint. We have suspended now our defence cooperation program with Fiji and I believe that the Commonwealth will consider and probably accept a proposal to suspend Fiji from the Commonwealth at a meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group at the end of this week. The coup has been deplored by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan; he said that he strongly deplored the coup.
Let me just say in conclusion that the Prime Minister and I have spoken personally on a number of occasions in the last few days to Prime Minister Qarase. This is a man of very great courage. He has not bowed to the intimidation of the military. He has held his ground. He has shown a strong commitment to decency, to democracy and to the freedoms that the ordinary people of Fiji expect to be their own. We will stand by Prime Minister Qarase, his government and the Fijian parliament at this very difficult time.
I have spoken to a number of other people during the course of the morning and—I am sure that all members of parliament would agree with this—I think the ordinary people of Fiji and the institutions of government in Fiji should show passive resistance to this imposition of a dictatorship on their country. I do not think public servants should cooperate with the commodore and the military. I do not think the police should cooperate with the commodore and the military. I think they should show passive resistance to this regime. Commodore Bainimarama should understand that there is an urgent need to restore the ownership of government in his country to the people of that country through their democratically elected parliament and institutions.
Immigration
80
80
14:57:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to a report released today by the Commonwealth Ombudsman detailing the wrongful immigration detention of nine children, including Australian citizens, between 2002 and 2005. Prime Minister, how can the government claim to be a supporter of family values when Australian detention centres have been used to lock up Australian kids for up to 282 days? Prime Minister, how did your government allow this to happen?
80
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I reject the proposition that because some people have been apparently imprisoned in error by the processes of a department it means the government is insensitive to family values. That is the equivalent of saying that anybody who suffers any kind of injury while in a state prison, incarcerated under the laws of the state, means that the state government is insensitive to the family values of the prisoner who has been injured. It is a ridiculous proposition.
I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that we put in place a process in relation to the Ombudsman, and it is the Ombudsman’s report which we commissioned from which he is quoting to ask me this question. In a large program dealing with illegal immigration, it is sadly the case that mistakes are made. No administration is perfect; there are mistakes made. This country, over the past few years, has had a problem with illegal immigration, either by people coming here illegally or overstaying their lawful permission to be in this country. It is because we have been willing to uphold the laws of this country and people have been taken into detention that inevitably mistakes have been made. But the alternative offered by the Australian Labor Party at various stages—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 104. The question is about Aussie kids being locked up. That is what the question is about.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is in order. I call the Prime Minister.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—It is significant that over the past few years—despite everything that has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues opposite—public support for, and belief in, the integrity of the Australian immigration system has risen. There is more support for a higher immigration program now than there was in this community when we came to office in 1996. The reason for that is that they now think there is a fair dinkum, strong immigration policy that is properly administered and properly run by this government.
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms Owens interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Parramatta is warned!
Superannuation
80
80
15:01:00
Vale, Danna, MP
VK6
Hughes
LP
1
Mrs VALE
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House how Australian workers and retirees will now be able to plan with certainty for their retirements?
81
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Hughes. I can tell her that it is now seven months since the government announced the most far-reaching reform of superannuation in Australia’s history. Former Labor minister Susan Ryan wrote:
Costello’s uncharacteristically bold and effective plan to simplify super and reduce its taxes should be commended.
She went on to say:
Maybe faced with the Treasurer’s bold gazumping of Labor’s cherished but slightly shabby super property, the Opposition will find the resolve to get another big picture worked out, and the wherewithal to let voters know about it.
That was seven months ago, and endorsed by Susan Ryan. We have been waiting breathlessly to hear what the Labor Party thinks about it.
Opposition members interjecting—
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—Even now we have the assistant shadow Treasurer—temporary—interjecting. We have the member for Brisbane interjecting. Somehow they cannot announce a policy until we introduce the legislation. That, I think, is the member for Hunter’s view: the Labor Party cannot announce a position until they see the bill.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Hunter is warned!
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—That is his position. Unfortunately for him it is not the position of Labor spokesmen, because yesterday they did announce their position. Apparently, the member for Hunter has not been let into the loop yet. Yesterday Senator Sherry put out a media release: ‘Labor to support budget superannuation plan’. That was on Wednesday, 6 December. That is funny, the legislation has not been introduced. As we have observed from the member for Hunter, he could not announce a position until it was introduced. Some people will wonder why his position on the front bench is under threat! Others will know. In fact, the ‘guess the shadow Treasurer’ competition has moved into a new phase. The member for Lalor will not step up to the plate. The member for Melbourne—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 104, this is clearly not relevant. The Treasurer should step up to the plate and answer the question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Treasurer was asked a question, which I believe he is answering. The Treasurer is in order.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—Of course, the member for Grayndler’s time as shadow environment minister is coming to an end in favour of the member for Kingsford Smith. As someone said, ‘Having the member for Grayndler instead of the member for Kingsford Smith is like having Barry Crocker in preference to Elvis Presley,’ which I think is a bit tough on Barry.
The shadow minister for superannuation, Senator Nick Sherry, has come out and said that Labor will now support the budget superannuation plan. The Labor caucus has decided to support the budget superannuation plan. Can I say that this is the first good decision that has been taken under the new Leader of the Opposition. It is seven months too late, but finally the Labor Party has brought itself around to support some decent reform in this place. Whilst the Labor Party are about it, let me announce some other decent reforms they could support in this place.
83Y
Hoare, Kelly, MP
Ms Hoare interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Charlton is warned!
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—Why not change the policy on industrial relations? Why not get behind the government in relation to the Future Fund? Why not support us in relation to provisioning for future generations? Whilst the Leader of the Opposition is about changing some of those Labor policies, let me commend him to follow the coalition policy on all of the issues where Labor has opposed them in the past. The reforms that this government has put in place have got us to where we are now, and we need to take those reforms forward for a new generation.
Immigration
82
82
15:06:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question again is to the Prime Minister. It refers to his previous answer on the Ombudsman’s report on the illegal detention of Australian children. Prime Minister, why do you take responsibility for any positive news that happens in this country? Prime Minister, why do you fail to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong and always blame someone else?
82
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I don’t.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Members are holding up their own question time.
Border Protection
82
82
15:07:00
Entsch, Warren, MP
7K6
Leichhardt
LP
1
Mr ENTSCH
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister inform the House about what the government is doing to help our Navy protect our borders against illegal smuggling and fishing? Are there any alternative approaches?
82
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr NELSON
—I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question and for a very strong commitment to border protection and, in particular, the basing of Armidale class patrol boats at HMAS Cairns. There is arguably no more important responsibility for any government than the protection of a nation’s borders and the sovereignty of its waters and its economic exclusion zone. In the recent budget this year, the government announced that an additional $388 million would be committed to border protection to detect and prevent illegal foreign fishing and unlawful arrivals and also to support the protection of our gas and oil platforms.
In support of our Customs aircraft, our Customs vessels and fishing and management authority activities, the Royal Australian Navy is providing a single fast frigate for the cause. We currently have five Armidale class patrol boats, which will rise to seven. The government has put two more minehunters into border protection. We have an RAAF Orion surveillance aircraft supporting these operations. Also, the government has consolidated the management of this process in a single border protection command.
There is no more important task that is done by the Royal Australian Navy than the protection of Australia’s borders. In April this year, I had the privilege of spending a day and a night on HMAS Bathurst, up at the Top End. Apart from admiring the courage and dedication of our Navy personnel, it became clear that our people are taking increasing risks in protecting our borders. The foreign fishing vessels that are coming to our country are increasingly sophisticated. They are engaging in activities which are very dangerous to our personnel and indeed to our patrol boats, including using very large sharpened poles, the throwing of missiles and a variety of things which endanger our people. On one occasion late last year, on a boarding party from HMAS Geelong attempting to board one of these vessels that was ignoring orders from one of our patrol boats, one of our people was left hanging onto the stern of this vessel as it sought to escape.
I asked the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy in May this year to review the rules of engagement under which the escalating measures that can be taken by our Navy could be strengthened somewhat. Yesterday, I approved new rules of engagement which, in addition to what our Navy can currently do, will include the use of capsicum spray. They will also include the use of tear gas, distraction explosives and firing. They will also include long-range acoustic explosives, and, under certain circumstances, our patrol boats will be allowed to fire directly to disable a vessel which is ignoring orders, which is seeking to escape apprehension and which indeed is threatening our Navy and our people. It is extremely important that anybody who comes to this country seeking to steal our fish and breach our sovereignty knows that they will be met with a very strong, disciplined Royal Australian Navy.
I am asked about alternative policies. The Labor Party has had four different policies on this in five years—the so-called coastguard. When the parliamentary committee considered in 2001 the concept of a coastguard, the Royal Australian Navy said this: ‘The creation of a coastguard would have a detrimental effect on Navy training and experience.’ I might also add that the CFMEU journal, Common Cause, in November that year asserted that the coastguard would be manned by members of the Maritime Union.
Australians have a very clear choice. They have very strong border protection, centrally coordinated, well resourced and supported by the Royal Australian Navy, where people coming to steal our fish and breach our sovereignty are met by a Royal Australian Navy ship. Alternatively, they can be met by a unionised coastguard which splinters and undermines the training of Navy personnel.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Members are holding up their question time. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Climate Change
83
83
15:13:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—Mr Speaker—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer you to page 530 of House of Representatives Practice, which states:
With the opposition call priority is given to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition ...
I am wondering whether standing orders are being undermined if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is never allowed to ask a question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt does not have a point of order.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: I would suggest that under standing orders that constitutes a frivolous point of order, and the member for Sturt should be dealt with—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Chief Opposition Whip should not reflect on the chair.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—I am not reflecting on the chair. With great respect, I would like to point out that it was not the time for questions to you; it was a point of order, and I believe that it constituted a frivolous point of order and action should be taken.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I note the point raised by the Chief Opposition Whip. I have already ruled on the previous point of order, and I do not propose to take it any further.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the State of the environment report released today shows that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 22 per cent by 2020? Is the Prime Minister aware that, if every country’s emissions were to rise by 22 per cent, global temperatures would increase by up to four degrees, fuelling extreme weather events and bushfires, damaging Australia’s environment and leaving our children and grandchildren with a lower living standard than we currently enjoy? Prime Minister, when will you start taking responsibility for acting on climate change?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! In calling the Prime Minister, I remind the Leader of the Opposition he should direct his questions through the chair.
84
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I can confirm that the report indicated a number of things, including some of those alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition. It also outlined some key achievements in environmental management since 2001, including a fourfold increase in Commonwealth government spending on the environment; decreases in land clearing in many states, which in turn have had a positive impact on Australia’s biodiversity; advances in protection of the marine environment; generally good air quality in most capital cities; and, improved water management through the Commonwealth government’s national water reform agenda. The report also outlines key environment challenges for Australia, including pressures on some of our fisheries and population pressure on the coast; the need for continued waste reduction and recycling efforts; and, the poor condition of inland waters and coastal lakes in some parts of Australia. In the last five years, contrary to what is implied in the Leader of the Opposition’s question, the government has invested an unprecedented amount of funding in the environment—namely, $10.3 billion. That is an average additional payment of $2 billion a year.
The response of the opposition is, ‘That’s of no account. What you have to do is sign up to the present Kyoto protocol.’ The reasons we have not signed the current Kyoto protocol are manifold. One of them is that, even if everybody met their emission target, you would have a total of one per cent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. Another reason—particularly important to the interests of those Australian communities that depend on the resources sector, on the coal industry—is that if we had signed the Kyoto protocol in its current form it could have put Australian industry at a competitive disadvantage. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to advocate that policy, but I am for the coalminers and the coal industry of this country. I am not going to have their great industry put at a competitive disadvantage. We need to do even more in relation to climate change. We need to invest even more heavily in clean coal technology. We also need to have an open-minded debate of ideas, including a debate on nuclear power.
Workplace Relations
84
84
15:18:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
1
Mr KEENAN
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister advise the House how the government’s workplace relations reforms are delivering higher wages and more family friendly work practices for Australian employees?
84
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
Mr ANDREWS
—I thank the member for Stirling for his question. In answering, I note that the unemployment rate in his electorate of Stirling has fallen from 9.4 per cent when Labor was in government to just 5.4 per cent today. What that means for hundreds, if not thousands, of families in Stirling, in Perth, Western Australia, is that they have a job and are able to provide for their families in a way that was not possible under the high unemployment rates of the Labor Party.
Today’s national account confirms once again that the Howard government reforms are delivering higher wages for Australian employees. These figures show that real wages in Australia under this government have grown by 17.9 per cent. That compares with the 13 years of the previous Labor government in which the real wages for ordinary Australian workers went backwards. Since Work Choices was introduced we have seen over 180,000 new Australian workplace agreements lodged and we have also seen many union and non-union collective agreements. I can report to the House and to the member for Stirling that the majority of these agreements contain family-friendly provisions that suit both employer and employee. Let me give you a few examples of a couple of well-known employers in Australia. David Jones, for example, have introduced flexible rosters, the opportunity for employees to bank additional hours for paid leave and new paid business leave. Country Road, another major employer in Australia which employs many young people, have introduced family-friendly provisions—child-care leave, extended maternity leave and the option of leave on half pay.
Small employers are also introducing family-friendly provisions. For example, the Salsa Bar and Grill in Port Douglas is providing their restaurant manager with shifts that accommodate her child-care arrangements. Increasingly, under agreement-making in Australia we see agreements containing family-friendly provisions that suit both the employer and the employee. This type of flexibility is what the Labor Party wants to roll back. They want to take us back to the old award system. For example, the New South Wales Paint and Varnish Makers Award is the type of thing which the Leader of the Opposition, under instruction from the union bosses, wants to take us back to. It does not even contain a part-time hours clause, yet we get this rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition about being family friendly.
The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition is all rhetoric. This is a triumph of style over substance. And why will they not go to the substance? Because their substance is a one-size-fits-all that will not benefit Australian workers or Australian businesses. The reality is that Australian workers and Australian employers are voting with their feet. They are taking up agreements put in place under the legislation of this government, agreements which are family friendly.
Climate Change
85
85
15:22:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
0
Mr RIPOLL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the State of the environment report released today shows there has been a significant increase in sea surface temperatures since 1950? Does the Prime Minister also agree that, if this continues, it represents a serious threat to the Great Barrier Reef, which is not only an environmental icon but also responsible for supporting the livelihoods of 200,000 Australians and a tourism industry worth $4.3 billion annually?
85
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the member for Oxley for his question. As I indicated in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, the report that was released today indicated a number of things, including some of the things referred to by both the member for Oxley and the Leader of the Opposition. It is true that this country faces significant environmental challenges. That is why it is absolutely fundamental that we have a proper debate with every idea and every response on the table, not a debate that ideologically rejects out of blind prejudice and ignorance consideration of one source of environmentally clean energy generation—namely, nuclear power. Anybody who understands anything about this debate would have to acknowledge, politics aside, that the way forward for this country, if we are to maintain our economic growth, is to have power generation based on cleaner use of coal and other clean environmentally friendly alternatives, and that has to include nuclear power. The member for Batman knows that, and I invite the member for Batman to talk to the member for Oxley and to educate him on some of the relevant issues.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll
—Relevance would be good.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Oxley has asked his question.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—You cannot look at the environmental challenges of this country through ideological blinkers, and that is essentially what the Australian Labor Party is doing. I am very proud of the things that this government has done for the environment. When I answered the question from the Leader of the Opposition I really did not do the government’s performance justice. For example, I did not mention that in the last budget we had a historic additional investment of $500 million to restore the health of the Murray and I did not remind the House that we have spent over $2 billion in relation to measures designed inter alia to meet our Kyoto target of 108 per cent. I point out that we are one of the few OECD countries and the only non-nuclear OECD country which is currently on track. Let me say that again: we are one of the few OECD countries and the only non-nuclear OECD country currently on track to either meet or go very close to meeting our Kyoto target. Today, for example, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources announced $13 million for eight renewable energy projects under the government’s renewable energy development initiative.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I am perfectly happy to sit down, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have not given the member for Oxley the call yet.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—You have not? I am sitting down anyway.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the member for Oxley wish to raise a point of order?
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The response by the Prime Minister has nothing at all to do with the question I asked.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Oxley will resume his seat. I call the honourable the Prime Minister.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll interjecting—
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—What is your problem? I was being courteous: I sat down because you were on your feet.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is in order. I call the honourable the Prime Minister.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I thought that was good manners, but if you would like me to continue to stand up all the time I am happy to do so.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Swan is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Who did you warn, Mr Speaker?
An opposition member—Swan, not you.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Swan—not me, I hope. I sometimes do not hear these things, Mr Speaker. Let me just remind the House that, amongst the many things that we have done, we have a commitment to low emissions technology that has been demonstrated through the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, the $75 million Solar Cities program and the $100 million investment in the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. We have already announced a large number of the allocations. We have announced three solar cities—Adelaide, Townsville and Blacktown—and they will install some 3,000 photovoltaic panels. They will assist more than 230,000 residents and businesses in learning how to reduce their energy use and to save money. They will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 64,000 tonnes each year and save their communities $9 million a year in electricity bills.
We have made a massive investment in the water fund to the tune of $2 billion. A lot of that money has already been allocated, and the member for Wentworth is in discussion with the states about some of the larger projects that they have put forward. Water is the great environmental challenge that this country has, and we are examining those projects. I welcome the release of the State of the environment report because it has given me an opportunity, courtesy of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Oxley, to tell the House and, through the House, the Australian people of the magnificent more than $10 billion program this government has had over the last five years. It is a figure that I do not think many Australians would be conscious of, but over the last five years we have invested $10.5 billion in environmental projects. I warmly thank the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Oxley for the opportunity to remind the Australian people of that achievement.
Republic of Korea
87
87
15:29:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
1
Mrs MOYLAN
—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the state of bilateral relations with the Republic of Korea and of recent developments on the Korean Peninsula?
87
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr DOWNER
—Mr Speaker—
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner
—Did you have a good lunch?
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—You certainly did. I thank the honourable member for her question. It was a great pleasure for all of us to welcome here today the President of the Republic of Korea, President Roh, and also his Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Song. It has been a timely reminder of the close relationship that exists between our two countries. Let me make three points about this visit. First of all, it has been an excellent opportunity for us to discuss the issue of North Korea and to ensure that everything that could possibly be done is being done to enforce the sanctions on North Korea which were introduced by the Security Council. The Australian government has made the point that it is one thing to resume six-party talks—we are much in favour of that—but these talks have to achieve something. They cannot just be talks for the sake of talks. North Korea cannot be rewarded just for returning to talks.
Secondly, it is an opportunity for us to talk about the environmental work done between Australia and Korea. The opposition asked questions about climate change. Australia and the Republic of Korea are founder members of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Indeed, our two countries co-chair the Task Force on Renewable Energy. So here are two countries out there, addressing the issue of climate change in practical ways.
Thirdly, in terms of the very strong economic relationship between our two countries, Australia and Korea have now agreed to undertake a feasibility study into a free trade agreement between our two countries. We hope that feasibility study will be constructive and will in the end lead to the negotiation of a free trade agreement. So it is a visit that is extremely welcome and a relationship that is very strong.
Climate Change
87
87
15:31:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
Mr DANBY
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the State of the environment report released today shows that 22 of Australia’s 64 internationally recognised RAMSAR wetlands are in serious decline and that this threatens the 80 waterbird species in wetlands in southern Australia? Given the extraordinary effort of your government, Prime Minister, to save one theoretical orange-bellied parrot, what is the government’s plan to save the many real waterbird species threatened by a serious decline of our wetlands?
88
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I am aware that some of the wetlands are threatened—I think it might have something to do with the drought. Forgive me for saying that—that is blaming somebody, is it, animating nature? That is apparently the ‘blame game’, Mr Speaker. Let me also say this to the member for Melbourne Ports—a member on the other side whom I respect a great deal: I don’t think signing the Kyoto protocol is going to do anything to save Australian wetlands. While I was on my feet a few moments ago, answering another question about—
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner
—What are you going to do?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Melbourne!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—the report that was referred to by the member for Melbourne Ports, the State of the environment report, I kept referring to $10.5 billion of additional expenditure over the last five years. As I sat down, it had a strange resonance.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner
—Smoke and mirrors.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Melbourne is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—It had a very strange resonance. It only came to me courtesy, I have to acknowledge, of one of my colleagues, whose sharpness on this I greatly respect—namely, the member for Casey. That figure, the $10.5 billion, was the budget deficit that this government inherited from the former Labor government.
Health
88
88
15:34:00
Baker, Mark, MP
DYK
Braddon
LP
1
Mr BAKER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Is the minister aware of claims that major reforms are required to Australia’s world-class health system? What is the government’s response?
88
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr ABBOTT
—I thank the member for Braddon for his question. I am pleased that he acknowledges that we have a world-class health system. He is not alone. No lesser authorities than the Prime Minister and every state and territory Labor chief minister acknowledge that Australia has ‘one of the best health systems in the world’. That does not mean that it is perfect, but it does mean that would-be reformers have to be careful lest they end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr Crean interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Hotham is warned!
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—Everyone would like to end the blame game over public hospitals, but the task of political leadership is not to devise a wish list but to explain how real improvements can be made. As far as this government is concerned, the way to end the blame game is for the federal government to run well the programs for which it is responsible, for the states to run public hospitals better and for both levels of government to manage the boundaries between their respective programs.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—What you don’t do if you want to end the blame game is set up a new federal-state quango, a single funder, to run public hospitals which will mean that no-one is really in charge. I say to the new Leader of the Opposition that if he thinks that the states are mismanaging our public hospitals he should say so. If he thinks that he can better manage waiting lists, if he thinks that he can better control costs, he should tell us how. One thing he certainly should not do is seek advice from the member for Lalor. Even after five years as shadow health minister the best she could come up with was to say in her Earl Page lecture: ‘Anyone who has already made up their mind—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard interjecting—
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—about what governments should do in this area—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—hasn’t thought through all the difficult issues.’
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—You have a problem with the truth.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Deputy Leader is warned!
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—No wonder she doesn’t get any questions in this House. She can’t make up her mind what to do and, if she could, she wouldn’t have thought through all the difficult issues.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Lingiari is warned!
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—No wonder she thinks she is not up to being shadow Treasurer. And she is not up to being shadow Treasurer. On behalf of the Australian people, I have a simple request of the new Leader of the Opposition: show us the policies! The Australian people are not interested in who runs hospitals; they want hospitals to run better. If the Leader of the Opposition cannot show us the policies, people will quickly conclude that Labor made a big mistake when they so cruelly dumped Kim Beazley.
Iraq
89
89
15:38:00
Edwards, Graham, MP
83R
Cowan
ALP
0
Mr EDWARDS
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the overnight testimony of the new United States Secretary for Defense, Robert Gates, that the coalition is not winning the Iraq war. Prime Minister, what is your strategy for winning that war?
89
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I am aware of the overnight testimony by Mr Gates. I do understand from later news reports, particularly Reuters, that he subsequently somewhat qualified—
Opposition members interjecting—
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—He did! But I am very happy to very directly answer the question asked by the member. The objective of this government and the objective of other members of the coalition must be to create a situation in that country such that the Iraqi people, having bravely voted on three occasions to embrace democracy, are able to look after themselves. That is the objective, and that will not be achieved by following the policy of the Australian Labor Party. Our objective is an Iraq that is able to defend herself—
83R
Edwards, Graham, MP
Mr Edwards
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With great respect to the Prime Minister, I asked about the strategy not the objective.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is answering the question. The Prime Minister is in order.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—The strategy leading to the objective, whatever description the member for Cowan wants to give it, of this government—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will be heard.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—is to create a situation whereby the people of Iraq, having bravely voted in the most appalling circumstances—including the most appalling intimidation—to embrace democracy, can live, protected by their own military and their own police force. That is the aim. That is the government’s policy. I repeat: it will not be achieved by the precipitate withdrawal of coalition forces, which is the policy of the Australian Labor Party.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Oxley has been warned. He continues to interject. He will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Oxley then left the chamber.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—The effect of the policy advocated by the Australian Labor Party is that the coalition would withdraw before the Iraqis are able to protect the democracy they have voted to embrace in the most—
UK6
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
Mr Kelvin Thomson
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked: what is the strategy? I ask you to draw him back to the question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Wills will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was asked a question, the substance of which is included in his answer. The Prime Minister is very much in order.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—If the coalition withdraws from Iraq in the way the Labor Party wants it to, then Iraq will be condemned to endless additional violence. Not only will it be regarded as an enormous victory for terrorism in Iraq but it will destabilise the politics of the Middle East. It will further set back the prospects of a settlement of the Palestinian issue, which is the core of many moderate Islamic concerns not only in the Middle East but around the world. That is the policy of the Australian Labor Party.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The honourable Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, when will the Prime Minister take responsibility for his strategy on Iraq and not talk about someone else’s?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I do take responsibility for the decisions of this government on Iraq. I have never run away from my responsibilities. I have always accepted total responsibility. What the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party do not like is to be reminded of the inevitable consequences of their strategy and their policy. They may not like it but, if Labor’s policy were followed, we would condemn the coalition to a significant strategic defeat in Iraq—
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An unhealthy practice has developed in this House of asking whether there are any alternative policies—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fraser will come to his point of order.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—I am, Mr Speaker. This gives ministers the chance to comment on opposition policy. This question had no such element—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fraser is not raising a point of order, and he will resume his seat. He is debating an issue.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I was asked a question on government policy in Iraq.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Chief Opposition Whip is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Our policy is not to withdraw coalition forces in circumstances of defeat—that is the policy of the Australian Labor Party. I want to remind everybody who sits opposite that if the United States withdraws from Iraq, which they are effectively advocating, in circumstances of defeat, not only will that do enormous damage to American prestige in the Middle East and around the world, with great adverse consequences for Australia, but also it will create a great deal of additional instability—
LN6
Hatton, Michael, MP
Mr Hatton interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Blaxland is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—in Iraq and in many other countries in the Middle East. It will set back the cause of trying to settle the long-running Palestinian issue which, as everybody who has studied this matter knows, is at the heart of many of the discontents in the Middle East. I am against a policy that gives a victory to the terrorists. I am against a policy that creates further instability in the Middle East and I am against a policy that leads to damage being done to the prestige of our most important ally, the United States. I take full responsibility for being opposed to those policies and I take full responsibility for the policy advocated and implemented by the government I lead.
Families
91
91
15:45:00
Richardson, Kym, MP
E0B
Kingston
LP
1
Mr RICHARDSON
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the government’s achievements in providing social support to Australian families, particularly in my electorate of Kingston?
91
Brough, Mal, MP
2K6
Longman
LP
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs
1
Mr BROUGH
—I thank the member for Kingston for his second question on this topic this week. He is clearly a man who is dedicated to his electorate and to providing for families. Yesterday I outlined the wonderful support that the Howard government has provided to Australian families—
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr Melham interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Banks is warned!
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr BROUGH
—regardless of where they live in this country over recent years. I acknowledge the Red Cross representatives here today in the gallery and the fine work that they do. There are a number of programs that the Howard government has implemented to help families—quite often families that are struggling. These are programs like Communities for Children, Early Childhood—Invest to Grow and the Raising Children website. That website is a wonderful tool for all parents to be able to get in and see good, practical information about raising their children and overcoming some of the difficulties that those of us in this place who are parents experience and, of course, it provides local answers.
The Communities for Children program is run right around the country in electorates like that of the member for Macarthur; in the electorate of the Opposition Whip, the member for Chifley, in Blacktown; in the electorate of the member for Paterson and in areas like Fairfield. It is run by wonderful organisations such as Mission Australia and the Smith Family amongst others. I visited the electorate of the member for Kingston a few months back and spoke to fathers. They spoke very passionately to me about the relationships that they rebuilt as a result of the connection of local organisations being supported by the Howard government’s initiatives in the Communities for Children program. It is essential that we as a government give as much support as we can to children in their early years from birth to five. Not every parent has the skills that are needed to be able to provide the life experience and the upbringing that is going to ensure that their children will be well-equipped in life. It is these wonderful organisations that we partner with that assist these people to have a better future.
Could I just suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, as he runs his show over the next 24 hours and puts together a team, the importance of families. I reflect on the seismic shift that occurred three years ago within the Labor Party—it is similar to the one that occurred two days ago—and remind him of the brains trust that put together their families and taxation policy that was going to take money from these very families we have referred to today. In that brains trust that wanted to strip money from families were people like the member for Lilley, who I recall thought that was not real money; the member for Fraser, who may make a comeback—he was then the shadow finance minister; the member for Gellibrand, of course, who was then looking after the shadow ministry for women; and the now deputy leader, the member for Lalor. I would hope, as you look towards running your show and you find someone who is able to look after the interests of families on behalf of the opposition, that you take into account those who were ready to stand by a Labor policy to harm Australian families the last time Labor had a leadership change.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
92
Questions to the Speaker
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Legislation
92
92
15:49:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
Mr BEVIS
—Mr Speaker, my question to you follows the question I asked last Wednesday. You will recall that I asked about a ruling you made that it was not within standing orders for me to move a second reading amendment describing the government as the ‘Howard government’. The word ‘Howard’ was not permitted to be used in the second reading amendment. Also, elsewhere in the second reading amendment I proposed to use other words which your office determined were unparliamentary and could not be raised. At the end of the question last week, you said that you would get a more detailed answer, which I indicated I would appreciate. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no detailed answer provided since that time. Given that parliament is due to rise for the year tomorrow, I was hoping that you may be able to give the House the benefit of your more detailed answer before the House rises.
92
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Brisbane. I have an answer; however, there was a slight typographical problem with it. It is being corrected and I will get him a written answer shortly.
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
92
92
15:50:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
0
Mrs IRWIN
—Mr Speaker, my question relates to the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, chaired by the member for Mackellar. A meeting was scheduled for 10 am on Monday of this week to continue deliberations on the committee’s report on balancing work and family. I advised the committee secretary that Labor members would not be able to participate as an important party meeting had been called and I requested that the meeting be postponed to later that day. He later informed me that he had spoken to the committee chair, the member for Mackellar, who advised him that the meeting would not be postponed. I phoned the chair to request a postponement and left a message on her mobile phone. The meeting went ahead with a quorum of government members only and proceeded to complete the committee’s deliberations on all remaining sections of the report. The meeting also agreed to allow for out of session tabling of the report and authorised the chair to selectively release the report under standing order 242. My question to you is whether it is contrary to all committee practice in this place that the committee chair holds a meeting to ram through a final report of an inquiry that has been running for two years at a time when no opposition members of the committee can attend because they are voting in a leadership ballot.
93
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fowler has raised a serious question. I will look closely at the point she has raised and give it serious consideration and will respond as appropriate.
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
93
93
15:52:00
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
SE4
Mackellar
LP
1
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—Mr Speaker, my question relates to the ability of a committee to determine its meeting times. Does the business of the parliament have to come to a standstill for one vote by the opposition members when a meeting called for 10 o’clock went until—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Mackellar will be heard.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—A vote was taken at about 10.15 by Labor Party members and we were still waiting for those members to come as late as 12.15. They did not come.
93
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—The member for Mackellar I think was raising a question or perhaps making a statement. I will look closely at the points raised by the member for Mackellar and respond as appropriate.
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
93
93
15:53:00
George, Jennie, MP
JH5
Throsby
ALP
0
Ms GEORGE
—Mr Speaker, I would ask you to confirm that, in accordance with the principles of House of Representatives committee procedure, all members of a committee are entitled to receive information commissioned by the committee both automatically and on request. I would like to ask whether, in your view, work commissioned by the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services at a cost of $17,000 should have been made available to all members of the committee to assist them in framing recommendations, particularly as this economic modelling would have had a significant bearing on a range of proposals that were being considered by the committee. Further, in your view, is it a breach of established procedures for a committee to adopt a final report and recommendations knowing that this vital information had not been made available to the Labor members of the committee?
93
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Throsby for her question. She raises a very detailed question. I will give consideration to responding to her as appropriate.
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
93
93
15:54:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you on a related topic. Mr Speaker, would you agree that it is completely unreasonable to expect me to write a dissenting report prior to the given deadline of 2 pm tomorrow in light of the fact that I am yet to see a copy of the complete final report to which I am dissenting, let alone the $17,000 research commissioned by the committee? As such, my question to you, Mr Speaker, is will you reject any request from the chair of the committee to table this report out of session and instead insist upon it being tabled when the parliament resumes next year?
93
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—The member for Adelaide has raised two points there. Firstly, I think she was requesting an opinion and, secondly, I feel the latter part of her question was hypothetical. I feel that at this stage I cannot answer further, but I will look closely at her question.
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
93
93
15:56:00
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
SE4
Mackellar
LP
1
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—Mr Speaker, would you confirm that sending material to members of a committee electronically is a perfectly proper way to do so and that perhaps some people do not open their boxes?
94
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I note the point raised in the question from the member for Mackellar and I think the answer is self-evident.
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
94
94
15:56:00
Quick, Harry, MP
AV5
Franklin
ALP
0
Mr QUICK
—Mr Speaker, I ask whether the chair of any committee should require public servants to work day and night for several weeks—in this instance, ironically enough, on a report on balancing work and family life. I seek your guidance on whether committee secretariat staff should be expected to work past midnight and work chronically unreasonable hours to meet the insatiable demands of the chair, the member for Mackellar, for a report that she proceeds to withhold from other committee members. Mr Speaker, I also seek your advice on whether a committee chair who passes a motion when half of the committee is unavoidably absent, giving her the authority to disclose sections of the report to media at her discretion, is in breach of privilege if she discloses any content before tabling the report.
94
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I say in response to the member for Franklin that if he wishes to raise matters about an individual in this place he should do so through a substantive motion. However, he does raise a number of other points in the detail of his question and I will look closely at them and respond as appropriate.
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
94
94
15:57:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr MURPHY
—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, and directly relevant to the matters raised by my colleagues on this side of the House, I want to draw your attention to my speech in this House at 9.20 pm on 3 August 2004, when I was the Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives—
94
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Lowe will resume his seat. There are other means by which he can raise that point.
DOCUMENTS
94
DOCUMENTS
Mr BROUGH
(Longman
—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs)
15:58:00
—Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN
94
DOCUMENTS
Report
94
94
15:58:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I present the report for 2005-06 on the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s activities in monitoring controlled operations conducted by the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
94
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Environment
Water
94
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Grayndler proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The urgent need for the Federal Government to take action to protect and restore our precious natural environment and water supplies.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
94
15:59:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
0
Mr ALBANESE
—The report released today, Australia state of the environment 2006, is an important addition to the information which tells us that climate change is real and it is happening right now. The report indicates that greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise by 22 per cent of 1990 levels by the year 2020. It puts a hole in the government’s argument that it is taking action on climate change. It destroys its argument that it is meeting the Kyoto target of 108 per cent by the year 2012. The only reason it is within a bull’s roar of reaching that target is the one-off decisions of the New South Wales and Queensland governments to stem land clearing.
The report outlines how, over the last five years, there has been lower than average rainfall all over eastern Australia. It documents what is happening in our cities, including that Perth’s water supply catchments are yielding 50 per cent less water than in the years before the mid-1970s. It outlines how ocean temperatures have increased by 0.28 per cent since 1950. The trend spells a disaster for the Great Barrier Reef, but of course we know that that is one area where the government do have a plan. We had the tourism minister last month proposing a shade cloth for the Great Barrier Reef to solve the problem of climate change. So it is not true that they do not have any plans. It is true, however, that the plans that they do have are not practical and are just rhetorical.
We know that the government consistently speak about how much money they have allocated. But what have they done? Let us look at the issue of water. Australia is the third largest per capita user of water in the world. The report confirms that there are significant pressures on Australia’s inland river systems. According to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, we are facing the worst drought in 1,000 years. And today that commission showed that inflows into the basin from June to November 2006 have been only seven per cent of the long-term average for that period.
The report confirms that Australia is facing an extinction crisis, we have lost 56 per cent of our vegetation in river systems and wetlands, 20 new pests and diseases are introduced each year into Australia and two million hectares of Australian land shows signs of salinity. All of that adds up to the fact that, on each and every indicator, the Australian environment is going backwards compared with where it was in 1996. To give one example, water consumption increased by more than 10 per cent from 1996 to 2001.
This outlines what is happening with our biodiversity. We all know the effort the government went to so as to not act in accordance with its own environmental legislation to save that one theoretical orange-bellied parrot every 1,000 years. One theoretical orange-bellied parrot every 1,000 years has all of the arms of government trying to save it. At the same time, the report says 29 bird species significantly decreased in number over the years up to this report. We know that 39 per cent of Australia’s 85 bioregions, and more than 30 per cent of the ecosystems, have been described as threatened. We know there has been a massive decline in waterbird numbers across eastern Australia. When it comes to wetlands, we know that altered flow regimes have resulted in the loss of 90 per cent of flood plain wetlands in the Murray-Darling Basin, 50 per cent of coastal wetlands in New South Wales and 75 per cent of wetlands on the Swan coastal plain in south-west Western Australia.
When it comes to water, we know it is over-allocated, undervalued and misdirected. And there is a lot of agreement between things that I have said and things that the parliamentary secretary for water, the member for Wentworth—who is at the table—has said about appropriate pricing of natural resources. The principles behind the National Water Initiative are essentially sound. We support market based mechanisms to drive water use to areas of higher value. But compare the rhetoric on water, even in the same speech sometimes. In the Prime Minister’s speech to the CEDA conference, he outlined the importance of market based mechanisms for water and then went on to say why emissions trading was bad. In the same speech!
The truth is that what we need, if we are going to address the environmental decline which Australia is seeing after 10 long years of the Howard government, is a consistent approach based upon the principles of proper pricing and valuing of our natural resources, the acknowledgment that they are finite resources and the establishment mechanisms which drive the change through. But that is not what we are seeing at the moment. What we see from the government is just more and more bureaucracy.
There is another report being launched today, which is the ALP discussion paper Protecting and restoring our precious natural environment and water supplies. I commend it to the parliamentary secretaries for water and the environment and heritage opposite, Bib and Bub, because what it presents is not just an analysis of what is wrong with the environment but a path forward—a detailed, comprehensive policy framework for moving forward to address these issues. It is a policy framework with climate change at its centre, because you cannot address issues such as water, whether it be in our agricultural areas or in our cities, without a plan to address climate change.
We see announcements from the government. Recently they announced the Office of Water Resources. The National Water Commission did not know about that announcement. They heard it on radio. I would be interested to know if the parliamentary secretary could outline exactly what the distinction is between the two offices. We know that this is a government that announces lots of programs with lots of overlap. What I want to see is the money and financing going into a streamlining of these programs. What the Labor discussion paper raises—and we have had discussion with the National Farmers Federation, with conservation organisations and with business organisations right across the board—is the need to actually move beyond rhetoric and into delivery. We need to consolidate land, water and biodiversity programs to ensure that the money is actually spent on the environment and not just on creating a bureaucracy so that the parliamentary secretary can say he is in charge of something.
Let us think about the programs that are there when it comes to natural resource management. We have the National Water Commission and the Office of Water Resources. We have the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, the Natural Heritage Trust, the National Water Initiative, the National Landcare Program, the National Reserve System framework and the Living Murray initiative. We have all those programs—
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—Are you doing our speech?
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Flinders may not get a chance to speak!
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—but not a single drop into the Murray, in spite of the rhetoric of those opposite.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith
—Two drips, not one drop!
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Perth!
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—I cannot not have that on the Hansard record: ‘Two drips, not one drop,’ the member for Perth says quite accurately. In spite of the rhetoric of the government that $700 million has now been allocated to the Living Murray initiative, we have not seen the purchase from willing sellers of one drop of water to put back into environmental flows—not a drop. When you look at the Living Murray website, it is terrific. It says things are projected and it has a state by state breakdown and at the bottom of it there is: ‘Amount of water delivered into the system’ and you get all the eggs in a row: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. That is what you get, because they have failed to actually deliver a drop.
Labor, on the other hand, believes that you have got to establish targets. That is why we have a 30 per cent target for water recycling by 2015. That is why we support mandated targets as the basis of the Kyoto protocol and the global system. That is why we support a national emissions trading scheme, so that you drive that change through in the least costly way. That is why we support putting 1,500 gigalitres back into the Murray River within 10 years—the amount that the scientists tell us is necessary to save the Murray River, or face the consequences.
What is happening is that one by one community groups and businesses are coming on and adopting the agenda and strategy that Labor has set. Today we have seen the peak policy-making body of the National Farmers Federation make a unanimous decision to join with the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change in calling for early action on climate change. Why are they doing that? The NFF president says because climate change:
... threatens Australia’s agricultural productive base—an important contributor to the national economy, the ability for Australian farmers to put food on the table of Australian families, and the long-term sustainability of at least 60% of Australia’s landmass.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics records that Australian farmers spent $3.3 billion on natural resource management over 2004-05, that 92% of farmers have environmental programs in place to manage and preserve their land, and that farmers plant over 20 million trees a year for conservation.
Farmers know that climate change is real and it is impacting on them first. That is why today they have taken such a strong position.
We have seen the Leader of the Opposition this week put forward an agenda for reform of federal-state relations. That is very necessary is in the areas of environment and water. We need to stop the blame game. We need to actually have the Howard government and the future Rudd government take charge and take responsibility for delivering on the ground. A Labor government will do just that, because in spite of the rhetoric—in spite of the fact that you have ‘Australia’ and ‘National’ in all these programs—we are not seeing the results delivered on the ground.
A Labor government will deliver clarity of purpose, commitment to implementation, appropriate accountability and monitoring of progress, because there is no greater issue facing the nation than climate change and addressing the symptoms of it, including the reduction in our water supplies. We know from report after report that early action is cheaper—that early action is not just good for the environment; it is good for the economy and good for jobs. What we have from those opposite is an acknowledgement that Kyoto is ongoing and will be the basis of the international effort, but we should not ratify yet. There is an acknowledgement that emissions trading is the main driver, but we should not have it yet. There is an acknowledgement that we need to put in place water trading and take action to buy back water that is overallocated, but there is no action yet. I say the time is now. (Time expired)
97
16:14:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr TURNBULL
—I was looking forward to the detailed policy framework from the opposition today, but we heard none of it from the member for Grayndler. Apparently, it is in a document which he has there, but he has not told us what is in it. But before I came to speak on this MPI, I thought I would do some research of my own as to what the Labor Party’s policies on water were. It is, after all, our biggest environmental challenge. So I went to the Labor Party’s website, as one does, and clicked on the heading ‘Policy’. There are a number of policy documents there. The first one which referred to water was a speech by Mr Beazley on 24 November 2005. Mr Beazley said:
I also at this point indicate my intention to have more to say about water policy. ... I will be addressing the challenges we face in water management in 2006.
That was all he had to say. Well, 2006 came along, and the next great address that we had from the then Leader of the Opposition was in March. I am afraid to say that there was not much about water there either. In a very long and tightly spaced document, it is not until we get to page 13 that he mentions water, and it is in the context of praising Sydney Water for offering $150 cash back on front-loading washing machines. That is a great answer to the drought.
Finally, on 15 November 2006, Mr Beazley gave a speech to the National Press Club, headed portentously ‘My blueprint for prosperity’. I have been through that document several times and with great care. Water is not mentioned once. The only statement I could find from Mr Beazley in the course of the last year or so about water was a statement on 9 November 2006 in which he called on the government to immediately commit $500 million to the Queensland government’s Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme. As it happened, I was in Brisbane that day meeting with the Queensland government, as I have met with every state government, to discuss their water plans, and this recycling scheme was on the agenda. The Queensland government had been in close discussions with the Australian government and the National Water Commission, and they had asked for financial support. They had asked for $184 million. So Mr Beazley was proposing that we should give them nearly three times what they had asked for. That is how Labor proposes to end the blame game. That is how Labor proposes to reform federal relations: give state governments that have neglected their water policy and infrastructure for decades three times what they ask for. That is the sort of recklessness with taxpayers’ funds that we can expect from the Labor Party.
One would hope that now that Mr Rudd has replaced Mr Beazley as the Leader of the Opposition a different approach might be had to water. We heard none of it today from the member for Grayndler. Perhaps that is because he is on the way out, about to be replaced by the member for Kingsford Smith. But the member for Griffith, the Leader of the Opposition, has quite a distinguished track record in the annals of water management failures in Australia. Mr Rudd was the chief of staff in opposition and the head of the cabinet office in government to Wayne Goss from 1988 to 1995. The Goss government was elected in 1989 in part based on a platform which included as a central plank a decision not to proceed with the Wolffdene Dam.
The Wolffdene Dam was the next big water storage facility proposed for south-east Queensland, the fastest growing urban area in Australia. It was a proposal of The Nationals government, and it was canned. It was terminated by the Goss government—no doubt under the advice of Mr Rudd. They failed to build the dam and then did nothing else—and that is really the key point here, because south-east Queensland is our fastest growing urban centre, and it faces a shocking drought. It goes into a long, hot summer, with El Nino conditions predicted, with its most important storage facility—Wivenhoe Dam—below 25 per cent full. There is no big city area in Australia more stressed for water than Brisbane and south-east Queensland. In large measure, the responsibility for that lies on the shoulders of the Goss government and its chief of staff, now the Leader of the Opposition, because in 1989 they decided not to build another dam.
Of course, they not only failed to build that dam but also failed to do anything else. There was a parliamentary inquiry into the dam, and the Labor members were opposed to it. But they recommended that Queensland should progress recycling and reuse and do something else. If you are not going to build a dam, do something else. Dams are not compulsory. There are all sorts of options for urban water. But they chose to do nothing, and that is why south-east Queensland faces the challenge it does today. That indeed is why Sydney, my own city, faces the challenge it does today. In 1995, Mr Carr was elected, decided not to build a dam and then did nothing else. In both of those two cities, our biggest and our fastest growing, there has been no substantial augmentation of water supplies for 30 years—incredible complacency and neglect. That is Labor’s track record.
What has the Australian government done under John Howard? As Paul Kelly wrote recently in the Australian, John Howard has been prescient on water. He led all the governments of Australia into the National Water Initiative, the blueprint for Australia’s water reform. The member for Grayndler has said it is sound policy. I thank him for that compliment. It is the policy of every single government in Australia. But it would not be the policy of every single government had it not been for the leadership of John Howard.
The Prime Minister has committed $2 billion to the Australian government water fund, the largest commitment of money to Australia’s water resources by a federal government in our history. Right around Australia, over half a billion dollars has been committed to projects which are improving our knowledge of our water systems, promoting recycling, and replacing, as they are in the Wimmera-Mallee, 16,000 kilometres of leaky, wasteful open channels with 8,000 kilometres of pipes. The Prime Minister has called for a revolution in the way we think about water, and he is delivering that with sound policies and with the largest contribution of cash to water that we have ever seen from a federal government.
In addition to that, the Prime Minister committed $500 million in the last budget to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. This was probably the most disappointing part of the member for Grayndler’s address to us. He complained, as he often does, that not one drop of water has found its way back into the Murray. He refers to the Living Murray initiative, which is a program to acquire 500 gigalitres of permanent water—long-term cap-equivalent water—for the river by 2009. He points to a page on the website of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission—a page which, I might say, was placed there by resolution of the ministerial council on a motion I moved largely because I wanted everybody to understand exactly where we are up to with the Living Murray initiative.
The most important thing to bear in mind about the Living Murray initiative is that the Commonwealth is not obliged to deliver one litre of water. The reason for that, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley—and you, with your background, know this better than anybody in this House—is that the Commonwealth does not manage water resources. The water resources of Australia are managed by the states and the territories. As one water expert often says to me, the Commonwealth has not delivered a bucket of water to anyone. That is a feature of our constitutional structure.
So the scheme for the Living Murray initiative was that, over that period—the five years through to 2009—500 gigalitres would be acquired in one form or another, and that would come entirely from the states. New South Wales’s target was 249 gigalitres; Victoria’s, 214; South Australia’s, 35; and the ACT’s, two. The reason Queensland is not mentioned there is that the focus of the Living Murray initiative is a number of important ecological sites along the Murray River, in the southern Murray-Darling Basin. All of that water is the subject of a considerable number of projects. They are not designed to deliver water tomorrow; they are designed to deliver water within their time frames. The majority of these projects are designed to acquire water for the environment but at the same time not diminish the amount of water that is actually or practically available for irrigation. We know that there is an enormous amount of water lost through wastage, through seepage, through evaporation and through inefficient practices in the irrigation areas. Every irrigator, including those in the public gallery here today, knows that a great deal of progress is being made and will be made in using water more efficiently. So our aim has been to achieve win-wins—a win for the environment and a win for agriculture.
The water that is in the process of being recovered is well over half that 500-gigalitre target. But the Prime Minister earlier this year, notwithstanding the progress that was being made, was dissatisfied with that. He was not happy to sit by and say, ‘I will stick to my commitment of putting $200 million into this $500 million fund’—$500 million to buy 500 gigalitres. He demanded that we do more. We have committed, out of the additional $500 million that has gone to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, an additional $200 million to the Living Murray initiative.
The Australian government has gone further. We have, out in the market today, a tender to buy water for the Living Murray initiative. Contrary to what the member for Grayndler has said to the effect that we are not buying any water, we have a tender out there in the market. I saw a press release by the member for Grayndler recently which said that a tender was not buying water. Most of us would recognise that that shows a touching commercial naivety. A tender is an offer to purchase water—but it is an offer to buy water on the basis that the water has become available by reason of water efficiencies. There are enormous quantities of water that can be made available through efficiencies. Simply piping open channels can, in some circumstances, save up to 90 per cent of the water, particularly where water is being directed over long distances through channels for stock and domestic purposes. Often the wastage—and this is certainly the case in the Wimmera-Mallee—can be as high as 95 per cent. So there is a lot that can be saved through investment which can then be made available.
But, if there has been a slowness in seeking to acquire water for the Living Murray initiative, that is clearly at the feet of the states. I know the new Labor approach, which Mr Beazley foreshadowed in the remarks I referred to earlier, is never to say a bad word about state governments and preferably to give them three times what they ask for. But the simple fact of the matter—and it is clear on the web page that the member for Grayndler refers to—is that the obligation under the Living Murray initiative to deliver water is from the states. The obligation from the Commonwealth is to pay 40 per cent of the cost of that. We have increased that to the point where we are now committing more than half the funds to the Living Murray initiative and we are seeking to buy water directly ourselves. No Australian government has been more committed to the water security of Australia than this one. (Time expired)
101
16:29:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
0
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—Regardless of what members opposite are saying, Labor has made statements on water, and many of them. Most recently there was a policy statement on water from Mr Beazley regarding a 30 per cent water recycling target, which was made at the South Australian state ALP conference less than a couple of months ago.
Let us remember and focus for a minute on what was promised by this government in relation to this nationally, regionally and locally most significant and critical issue. This government gave its word that in the five-year period from June 2004 to June 2009 necessary steps would be taken to deliver an average of 500 gigalitres per year of additional flows to the River Murray system. This additional 500 gigalitres per year was to assist with the river’s general health and, hopefully, prevent the total destruction and loss of some of the Murray-Darling’s most precious and environmentally significant assets—six assets, in fact, spread through the system—and provide an ongoing opportunity for the renewal and continued health of those assets.
Within South Australia we have the collective asset of the Lower Lakes, the Murray Mouth and the Coorong—South Australia’s highly valued coastal waterway that is supposed to be an essential migratory bird habitat and has been central to the reproductive cycle of fish life for an aeon and a day. This asset was selected because of its unique ecological qualities, recognised both nationally and internationally, and because of its significance. It is a highly significant asset from the perspective of South Australians, culturally and recreationally, and the Prime Minister played on the value South Australians place on the area and its systems when, only days after committing to the 500-gigalitre target and time frame, he attended a Hindmarsh Liberal campaign function during the last election campaign and told the people of Adelaide:
... there is no issue long-term that is more important to many people in South Australia than to get the River Murray flowing again ...
… … …
... we are able to see the way ahead ... the day when the water will flow more freely again ...
That is what the Prime Minister said to the people of South Australia. But was he serious or was this just political spin in a desperate bid to save a very marginal coalition seat? I would say it was the latter.
I question whether the original target was in any way near satisfactory, whether 500 gigalitres on average for the entire system would actually provide what is necessary, even with scientifically rigorous economies of water use for environmental outcomes in place. It has been suggested that just the lower Murray itself needs as much as 700 gigalitres per year, let alone the rest of the system. It has been put quite strongly that the system as a whole needs three times what the federal government has settled on as its target—its minimal, almost tokenistic target. Nevertheless, the Howard government’s minimal and, one would think, easily reached target—compared with that of Labor—of 500 gigalitres per year is the target on which it has focused.
The government is now three years through its five-year time frame. It has consumed 60 per cent of the time it has made available to itself, so let us see where the government is up to. It fills me with great sorrow, as it does many other South Australians and in fact all Australians, that at this point the Howard government’s Living Murray, First Step initiative has delivered not one eye-dropper full of water to the River Murray—not one single drop; zilch, zero, nothing. The recent progress report sourced from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission on the Living Murray initiative has so many zeros on it that it looks more like an old binary computer card than a report on water delivery—a progress report on water delivery, no less.
I acknowledge that the states are in the process of doing what limited infrastructure projects they can and that have been assessed as viable and productive. In fact, they are currently in the process of implementing about half of what the Howard government promised and expects to be congratulated for—half a promise, which might have the political conviction of, and may amount to, just some idea about something that someone had.
Reaching the government’s 500-gigalitre target appears totally dependent on projects that are under investigation, the majority of which the Murray-Darling Basin Commission itself admits in its report will not be financially or logistically viable. So the fulfilment of the Prime Minister’s promise of 500 gigalitres is totally dependent on a pie-in-the-sky idea that will, in the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s opinion, drop like the value of T2’s share issue.
Returning for a minute to what the Prime Minister told South Australians in my electorate in July 2004, he said, in addition to what I have already relayed this afternoon, ‘You deserve it and you’ve been delivered it.’ Yes, we in South Australia do deserve it, as all Australians deserve it, but we have been delivered it? Delivered what? We have not been delivered anything, not one single drop. As I said, we deserve it, yes—full marks for that; that is very nice of you to say—but we have been delivered absolutely nothing. We have been delivered a strong and improving scientific basis on which to make management decisions and install management infrastructure and systems, but we have been delivered that by the state government, not by the federal government.
From the federal government, it is a very different story. In February of this year the Prime Minister was no doubt all excited at playing the insurgent in vowing, as quoted in the Advertiser in February, ‘to put a bomb under the process’—a highly destructive image which one would think is not conducive to making positive gains. But I wonder how long the Prime Minister’s fuse is. It has thus far been burning for nearly 300 days since that statement was made in the Advertiser, and we have not yet seen or heard anything noteworthy—no riverbanks or weirs blown, no rain-producing pyrotechnics in the sky, no dirt propelling, no Ord River ditch digging, no shock waves rippling across the country—but we are still waiting for the big bang. The farmers are still waiting; the townspeople are still waiting; the entire state of South Australia is still waiting, poised, ears cocked, with attention focused on the almighty bang that may still come from any little ditch digger’s explosion.
While the Prime Minister himself can have a dangerously short fuse on demand, as seen in this place time and time again in response to the most serious and substantial of questions and representations, his explosion-generating device on this occasion, as stated in the Advertiser, is the one thing in the country that probably could be described as wet. It is regrettable that we have been delivered words only and not water.
And the Prime Minister has taken a leaf out of a former premier’s book, according to his response to a recent question put to him by the mover of this MPI, the member for Grayndler. Not content with directing words to my electorate, nor to the hundreds of thousands of people dependent on and with a substantial and ongoing interest in the River Murray, the Prime Minister has taken to including the Lord Almighty in his list of audiences. On 29 November in this place the member for Grayndler questioned the government’s clearly demonstrated lack of progress in meeting its own minimal target, and the Prime Minister answered: ‘I pray for rain every day.’ Good on him. We all pray for rain. I think that is highly commendable. Those of us who pray for rain pray every day and wish that we could see some rain. There is good reason for people throughout the nation to pray for rain, not just over their own catchment areas but throughout all regions that are trying to make a living under the most horrendous, hellish conditions that this country has perhaps ever seen.
We have seen water restrictions, entitlements suspended, animals being sold off, paddocks of crops left to die off and productive trees being left to fend for themselves—if they can, that is. Total water consumption dropped across the nation by some 14 per cent from 2000-01 to 2004-05, and this was before the worst excesses of the current worst drought of a thousand years. Water used for agricultural purposes in this period decreased by 23 per cent and water used for households by eight per cent, but water consumption in some sectors, such as mining and metal manufacturing, has increased in line with mining activities. This is according to the latest water account produced by the ABS. What kind of water deprivation, what kinds of stresses, what kinds of decreases in water consumption now apply? One can only imagine.
Whether we are thinking of the farmers on whom we rely for our personal sustenance and national exports, the communities that support the regions, the lives of people and animals or even the soil’s productivity, we can all take the most serious of droughts to the Almighty in prayer. But, as we know, while every prayer may be answered, the answer is not always in the affirmative. This in itself could be considered to be a substantial but overall narrow approach to our water problems.
The Prime Minister could do well not to just throw his hands up in the air as he did in response to the member for Grayndler’s question, suggesting that this problem is beyond him, that he has run out of ideas and that he has lost the initiative necessary to become the instrument used in answer to his own prayer—a very sad thing. The Murray is my state’s and many, many tens of thousands of other people’s lifeline. We cannot afford, we cannot sustain and we cannot countenance the government’s ongoing failures. (Time expired)
103
16:39:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
1
0
Mr HUNT
—Let the words ‘the Wolffdene Dam’ hang like a talisman of shame around the neck of the Leader of the Opposition, because that is the dam that, the last time the Leader of the Opposition had his hands anywhere near power in Australia, he destroyed. He destroyed the potential for a new dam in south-east Queensland with a failure to plan for infrastructure, a failure to prepare for the environment. Let those words ‘the Wolffdene Dam’ start to make their way around Australia. If you want to know how the Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, will govern, look at what he did last time. The last time he had his hands anywhere near the resources and control of government in any Australian jurisdiction was as the chief of staff to Wayne Goss, the then Premier of Queensland. What he did was to put a knife through proposals for the Wolffdene Dam.
Who is paying for that action? It is the people of south-east Queensland right now, at this moment. They may talk on the opposition benches about preparing for the future, but we have the example of the Wolffdene Dam, as raised by my learned leader in this debate, my colleague, my friend and parliamentary secretary with responsibility for water, the member for Wentworth. The last time we saw the Leader of the Opposition with his hands on the tools and the levers of government in Australia he destroyed Queensland’s capacity to prepare for its own water future.
It is a serious business to protect the nation’s environment, it is a serious business to prepare for the future and it is a serious business to care about what happens to future generations of families. It is families, farmers and businesses in south-east Queensland that are suffering today from the failure of Kevin Rudd in the past to stand up for long-term planning. He took the soft option. He played to the crowd. The damage is real and palpable, and people today in south-east Queensland are suffering precisely because of that action. When we want to see what is going to occur with regard to infrastructure and preparation for the water needs of this country in future years if the putative Prime Minister, the would-be leader of this country, ever gets his hands on the authority, the roles and the levers of government in this country, we have to look at what he did in the past. He destroyed a dam. He destroyed the best chance that south-east Queensland has had in the last two decades to prepare for its own water future. That is real and that is a problem.
Let us compare the two approaches here on water and climate. What we hear from the opposition is total failure and silence on three fronts: firstly, on infrastructure; secondly, on pollution in relation to water; and, thirdly, on what their proposals will do to petrol and energy prices for ordinary Australian families. They talk about the poor, yet they want to impose a regressive approach which is going to strike at the heart of the ability of lower income families, farmers and pensioners to deal with their petrol and energy bills.
I turn first to the issue of urban waters, complementing the material brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister with responsibility for rural water. We hear total silence, we hear nothing, from the opposition about the fact that 1,800 gigalitres, or 1,800 billion litres, of waste water is cast aside every year around the Australian states by state Labor governments. They talk about the waste of water, yet who is wasting that water? We see 1,800 billion litres of waste water every year. Four hundred billion litres of primary sewage is dumped just off, between 2,000 and 3,700 metres off, the coast of Sydney—less than 15 kilometres from the member for Grayndler’s own electorate. Four hundred billion litres a year of primary sewage is dumped off the coast. It is a risk to health, it does damage to the environment and it is a monumental waste of resources. But is there any pressure on the states about that? They mention blithely the 30 per cent target, but there are no proposals to achieve that and there is total silence about the fact that the states themselves have responsibility and are failing to deal with it.
There are 350 billion litres dumped every year. Off Gunnamatta, 150 billion litres are dumped every year. Off my own electorate of Flinders, 200 billion litres are dumped into Port Phillip Bay in Victoria, yet the Victorian government has allowed this to occur and to continue. There are 200 billion litres of waste water dumped in Brisbane at Luggage Point, on the Sunshine Coast, and off the Gold Coast and in the Brisbane River—200 billion litres of secondary treated sewage, dumped at sea, not reused or recycled. That is a problem. This is a debate about water resources: let us focus on the real waste. It is a monumental waste, an extraordinary waste. Yet there is total silence on what their state colleagues are doing. They think that federalism now is to blame the Commonwealth for everything, to be silent on what the states are doing and to be silent about the failures of infrastructure.
What have we done by comparison? What has the Prime Minister done on this? He took up this challenge of cooperative federalism but backed it with real dollars: $2 billion for the National Water Initiative, of which $1.6 billion was for infrastructure. That infrastructure is sponsoring real projects all around this country. Whether they are the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline or recycling schemes around the country, these are real things that are happening and would not have happened but for the Commonwealth’s intervention.
But I know from dealing with the member for Wentworth and others that there is resistance to the states making their contribution. We see that only yesterday the South Australian government refused to play its part in the drought-proofing the south proposal for the Onkaparinga shire. It is an absolute failure of responsibility. They ask others to pay for their mistake and will not even make the most minor contribution. So we are out there trying to do everything we can to make the states and to encourage and support the states to reuse their water and clean up their coasts. If you talk about environmental pollution and you talk about water resources, explain where you stand on this waste of 1,800 billion litres a year.
And then let me turn to the issue of climate change. There is a real difference here between the two approaches in the House. What I want to present is that there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with climate change. The wrong way, at the international level, is what has been presented by the new Leader of the Opposition, who wants to sign an agreement as if suddenly the reality of emissions will disappear. Well, this is the reality. The wrong way is an agreement which has allowed emissions to increase from 100 per cent to 140 per cent during the course of its life. It would have had one per cent impact. The reason is that the major emitters are excluded from it. Yet they hold this up as something that is going to be successful: the Kyoto protocol. I accept the intention, but I reject the mechanism. The reason we reject the mechanism is very simple: China, India, the United States—the major players—are out. And what about those countries that have actually ratified, the ones that have made the promises? As the Prime Minister said today, the only country that is on track to meet its targets that is not a nuclear country is Australia. That is very interesting.
ET4
Bevis, Arch, MP
Mr Bevis
—What was our target?
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr HUNT
—I will tell you about that. We hear that Canada has gone from 94 per cent to 116 per cent: 22 per cent over. France is at nine per cent over. Japan is at 12 per cent over its target. Norway is at 22 per cent over. Spain is at 36 per cent over. Each one of those countries will be more than Australia’s target. And they are just examples.
So what the Labor Party says is: ‘We should support those people who promise but breach’—classic! Whereas we do not make the promise, but we deliver. Our approach—the right way—is to support a new agreement with everybody in, to work with the United States and make the most of our alliance with them and, above all else, to work on practical measures through the Asia-Pacific partnership to deliver real changes at a global level, where we are putting $100 million on the table to work with China and India to bring low emissions there. There is $2 billion on the table in Australia. I commend the Prime Minister for his work leading this debate towards real and practical responses that will cut emissions—not pretending that a few solar panels or a signature will solve it, but actually trying to take steps that will do two things: protect Australians against massively jacked-up energy and petrol prices while at the same time providing a guarantee for our future and making real cuts in emissions.
106
16:49:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—What a missed opportunity today has been. What a disappointing contribution from the member for Grayndler and the member for Wentworth. If there ever was an opportunity for the member for Wentworth—
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—But the member for Flinders was okay.
009LP
Windsor, Antony, MP
Mr WINDSOR
—Well, the member for Flinders makes some sense on climate change. He got dragged into the political blame game in the first nine minutes of his speech, which was unfortunate. What an opportunity for the member for Wentworth to enter this debate and make a statement today. All we have heard is what people are sick of hearing about: the blame game between the Commonwealth and the states. The member for Wentworth is right in the middle of one of those situations at the moment. He is fully aware of the groundwater issue—the tax treatment issue. But we will come to that in a minute.
Let us look at what the Commonwealth has done over the last 11 years, since this government was put in power. There was an agreement—and it was put in place by the former Labor government, so they are both complicit in it—on national competition policy to look at reform. Reform of water was one of the main objectives of that policy initiative. Eleven years have gone past. One of the underpinning fundamentals of that reform process was that property rights would be recognised by those who had water entitlements. Nothing happened. The member for Wentworth is well aware that that was a major objective of that policy, and to come in here today and say that the Prime Minister and others have made great steps forward in water policy is quite ridiculous when one of the things that has underpinned the policy has not been touched at all.
The issue of property rights has not been touched. One of the initial agreements of the national competition policy was that moneys would not flow from the Commonwealth to the states unless certain benchmarks were met in terms of the reform policy. However, $4.6 billion has been expended by the Commonwealth to the states when they have had the capacity within that policy document not to give that money. Why wouldn’t the states run off like vandals with the money when the Commonwealth keeps giving it to them? We have had many intergovernmental agreements, blueprints, water quality and salinity arrangements, national water initiatives, Living Murray initiatives and money being thrown as if it is confetti, and very little achieved.
We have this policy arrangement at the moment where irrigators—the people we are talking about here—have given up water. The groundwater users of New South Wales have shown the lead on this issue. They have given up water to achieve the sustainability of their groundwater resource. The member for Wentworth is well aware that they have nearly given up on the government, both state and federal, in relation to this issue. An arrangement was put in place where both governments would make a contribution to compensate these people for the loss of their income-earning capacity, the loss of a capital asset. That has gone on for nearly two years now. No decision has been made as to whether the Australian Taxation Office will tax that as income, in which case the Commonwealth will get its contribution back because it is contributing one-third to the package, or whether it will be taxed as capital.
Recently the Prime Minister said—and I know the parliamentary secretary agrees—it should be taxed as compensation. The Prime Minister wrote to me the other day and said that I might be interested to know that, at the last meeting with Premier Morris Iemma, the Premier said that it should be treated as compensation. We have everybody agreeing that it should be treated as compensation but they are getting taxed as if it were income.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—It is with the ATO; you know that.
009LP
Windsor, Antony, MP
Mr WINDSOR
—Well, that is the proposal that is out there at the moment. I have raised this issue a number of times and I actually wrote to the Premier because every time you raise it in here—and the same thing happened today—the Commonwealth blames the state government. I have an FOI request in to see what has happened to the paper trail on all of this, to see who is to blame. Someone is to blame; or they are both complicit if someone is hiding behind the FOI in relation to this. I made a suggestion to the parliamentary secretary and I got in touch with the Premier and said, ‘Let us get these people in the one room and work it out.’ In New South Wales they say it is the Commonwealth’s problem; in this place the Commonwealth says it is the state’s problem. We heard more of that rubbish today.
I got in touch with the Premier and asked whether he would be prepared to put his minister in a room with the parliamentary secretary, and others if required, to sort this issue out. If it is a matter of the wording of an offer document, let us change the words. We have the Prime Minister and the Premier saying that it should be treated as compensation. The parliamentary secretary tells me there is no need for a meeting. I would advise the parliamentary secretary, the Premier and the Prime Minister to settle this particular issue before Christmas. These people are sick and tired of being treated as pawns in a political game. I intend to pursue the FOI, and if it costs money it will be paid. This is an act of absolute vandalism and for anybody at a state or federal level to say that they are moving towards sustainability and encouraging sustainability of natural resources when this sort of nonsense is going on is reprehensible, to say the least.
Concerns have been raised today about our cities, and the new opposition leader was brought under attack about some dam near Brisbane. People in our metropolitan areas, our major cities, live near the water. The member for Wentworth should look out his front window one day—he will see the water. Climate change is about that water coming up. There is plenty of water for our cities. For the Business Council and others to start suggesting that they should be taking water from inland Australia to feed our cities is quite ridiculous. Just take the salt out of it and drink the stuff. There is plenty there. If we keep doing what we are doing with coal-fired power stations there could be more. You could be adding to the resource over time, so there should not be a problem with water for our cities.
Another issue I would like to raise is renewable fuels. Climate change is upon us. The road to Damascus was crossed about three weeks ago. Al Gore’s cartoon movie, as it was described at the time, has suddenly created a great rush of blood in the government. Climate change is here. So we should, in terms of policy, be encouraging the use of energy sources that are clean. What are we doing in terms of biofuels? In 2011 we are going to tax them—use them as a source of income for the coffers. We are not going to encourage them, but tax them. So that is one policy the government should look at very quickly. If we are going to use carbon credits, charges on water and other market mechanisms to send signals to people or, as the Business Council and the parliamentary secretary have suggested, use pricing policy to drive initiatives then why are we taxing some of these clean fuels? The message that is sending is quite ridiculous.
The third issue is the carbon issue. Climate change is upon us because of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Prime Minister is putting in place a task force to look at establishing some form of carbon emissions trading—or whatever you would like to call it. Agriculture is not included. Soils of high organic matter and humus could be used as a natural sink for carbon, particularly in the short term—that 30- to 40-year period we are really concerned about. That is aided by improving soils through land use, better management, better agricultural techniques, no-till agriculture, green manure crops et cetera. The farm sector should be on that task force right from the word go; they should not be an additive later on after the business arrangements have been made by big business as to who gets the money in terms of the credits.
The other advantage to putting that system in place is that we are sending a positive message to the farm sector to put in place better farming techniques, no-till agriculture, better soil and more organic matter. You achieve better water infiltration of the soil, less erosion and better yields. You put in place a system that is double-barrelled; it takes care of some of the carbon problems but it also delivers some drought-proofing in terms of better land use management. And you use the pricing mechanism to send the message. So it is important that we start to initiate some policies in this place and that we stop blaming one another as to whose fault it is and living in the past. Obviously, we would not have a climate change problem if we had addressed some of these issues in the past. It is time to get on with it and put in place policies that actually work. (Time expired)
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.
COMMITTEES
108
COMMITTEES
Privileges Committee
108
Report
108
108
17:00:00
Thompson, Cameron, MP
84C
Blair
LP
1
0
Mr CAMERON THOMPSON
—I present the report from the Committee of Privileges concerning an application from Mr Mike Berwick for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives.
Report—by leave—adopted.
84C
Thompson, Cameron, MP
Mr CAMERON THOMPSON
—The report I have presented relates to a request from Mr Berwick for a right of reply in relation to references to him made by the member for Paterson in the House on 17 August 2005.
A submission from Mr Berwick was referred to the committee on 12 October 2005 by the Speaker, under the House’s resolution which provides for the right of reply procedure. The committee considered the submission at a meeting on 29 November 2006 and has recommended to the House that a response in the terms included in the report I have just presented be incorporated in Hansard. In recommending that the response be incorporated in Hansard, the committee emphasises that, as required by the right of reply resolution, it has not considered or judged the truth of any statements made by the members in the House or by the person seeking a response.
The document read as follows:
Report concerning an application from Mr Mike Berwick for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives
House of Representatives
Committee of Privileges
November 2006
Canberra
Membership of the Committee
Chair
Mr Cameron Thompson MP
Deputy Chair
Ms Anna Burke MP
Members
Mrs Trish Draper MP
Mrs Joanna Gash MP
Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP
Mr Daryl Melham MP
Mr Bob McMullan MP
Hon Roger Price MP
Mr Don Randall MP
Hon Alex Somlyay MP (Representative of Leader of the House)
Ms Tanya Plibersek MP
(Representative of Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Committee Secretariat
Secretary
Mr David Elder
Research Officer
Ms Claressa Surtees
Administrative Officer
Ms Laura Gillies
Mr Mike Berwick has made an application, under the procedure adopted by the House on 27 August 1997, for the publication of a response to references made about him in the House by Mr R Baldwin MP on 17 August 2005.
The Committee suspended its consideration of the application, at Mr Berwick’s request, while an investigation was undertaken by the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC). The CMC has now completed its investigation.
The Committee considers Mr Berwick should be given a response and the terms of the response have been agreed by him and the Committee. A copy of the response is at Appendix 1.
In agreeing to the response, the Committee notes, as required by the resolution of the House for Rights of Reply, that it has not considered or judged the truth of any statements made by Members in the House or by the person seeking a response.
The Committee recommends that a response by Mr Berwick (at Appendix 1) to references made about him in the House on 17 August 2005 be incorporated in Hansard.
MR CAMERON THOMPSON MP
Chair
November 2006
Appendix 1
The allegations made in relation to me by the Hon Bob Baldwin MP in the House of Representatives on 17 August 2006 have been found to be without substance in a report by the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC). The allegations emanated mainly from Mr Jeff McCloy, a developer with property and business interests in the Douglas Shire where I am the Mayor of the Council. The CMC’s report also says that Mr McCloy sought assistance from Mr Baldwin and that “Mr Baldwin aided in the preparation of Mr McCloy’s written complaint to the CMC.”
The allegations can be summarized as follows:
-
Cr Berwick allowed his personal interests in a barramundi farm, a private forestry operation and a corporation know as FNQ NRM Ltd to conflict with his public duty as an elected member of the Council;
-
Cr Berwick corruptly used his authority as Mayor of the Council to benefit his personal interests;
-
Cr Berwick misappropriated substantial funds the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments had granted to FNQ NRM Ltd and an organisation called the Daintree Coordination Group; and
-
Cr Berwick improperly made unauthorized disclosures of confidential Council information to certain individuals with tourism or development interests north of the Daintree River.
These allegations have caused a very large and unnecessary cost to the Douglas Shire, to FNQ NRM Ltd and to my family in terms of:
-
administrative distraction, consumption of staff time and Councillor focus on phantom issues;
-
damage to the reputation of the shire;
-
negative impact on the tourism industry and on investment in the shire;
-
the cost of the various investigations to the public purse;
-
interference with the operations of FNQ NRM Ltd;
-
the large amount of time taken up by state and federal government agencies; and
-
the financial and emotional cost to me and my family, particularly my partner, Ms Jane King.
The fact that the allegations were first released to the media and the story was founded on the proposed tabling of the allegations under parliamentary privilege quoting Mr Baldwin has denied my rights as a citizen and prejudiced the CMC inquiry.
It is clear the allegations made about me were totally without foundation.
Public Works Committee
110
Report
110
110
17:02:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
1
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 19th report for 2006 of the committee, relating to the proposed extension and accommodation upgrade to the existing chancery of the Australian Embassy in Beijing, China.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper
4V5
Moylan, Judi, MP
Mrs MOYLAN
—by leave—This report addresses the extension and refurbishment of the chancery at the Australian Embassy, Beijing, at an estimated cost of $21.61 million. China is increasingly occupying a more important position in Australia’s international relations. It is a relationship that is fast expanding and is based on the complementary nature of our economies. The Australian government also recognises the potential gains from our cooperation with China in many forums and the role that China plays in the North Asian region.
Our presence in China must reflect the importance we place on that relationship, and that includes the Australian Embassy in Beijing. The current chancery building was constructed by the Australian government in 1992 and since then pressures on the office accommodation arising from increasing numbers of staff have produced a situation where it is now a priority for major works to be undertaken to address the needs of attached agencies as well as staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
To illustrate this point, when the chancery was first occupied in 1992, staffing included 30 Australian based officers and less than a dozen locally engaged staff. Currently, there are 47 Australian based staff and 200 local employees. Although the department has sought to keep pace with the growth in staffing, including the construction of a temporary annex, the conversion of unused staff apartments to office space and an auditorium in the main chancery building to office space, overcrowding of accommodation has remained an issue.
The proposed extension will rectify the current circumstances. It is intended that the temporary annex and two staff apartments that have been previously been converted to office accommodation will be demolished and replaced with a new three-level extension to the existing chancery of 2,400 square metres. In addition to the construction works, new mechanical, electrical and plumbing services will be provided to the new extension and existing services upgrade. The department has also informed the committee that some ancillary works, including security and improved energy conservation measures, would be implemented that would also offer considerable improvements in the conditions that previously existed. These works will be undertaken within the approved estimate.
The committee sought assurances that the proposed work would meet future staffing requirements. Clearly, the issue of future staffing growth is problematic for the department. In an overseas environment it is seldom possible to lease secure premises that offer the required facilities. However, the departmental position was that the new extension and the refurbishments to be undertaken of the existing chancery building will, based on current information, offer a solution to the problems experienced in the past. Although acknowledging that it had little control over the numbers of staff posted to the embassy in Beijing, the department explained that an additional 100 square metres of floor space had been allowed for that could be used for additional offices.
In terms of the timing of the proposal, the committee expressed some reservations over the delivery of the new works, particularly since final occupancy would not occur until October 2010. The department informed the committee that this timetable was due to a number of external factors, including protracted negotiations over the possibility of the embassy being located to another and larger site, which was rejected on the grounds of cost to the Australian government in redeveloping a new site, and a moratorium imposed on major building works other than those associated with the Beijing Olympics by the Chinese authorities in the lead-up to the Beijing Olympics in 2008.
Overall, the committee was satisfied that the proposed works represent value for money. Taking into account the extent of the work proposed, the improvements in working conditions that will result and delivering an improvement in available office space for the staff of the embassy, both locally engaged and Australian based, the proposal represents money well spent.
On behalf of the committee, I recommend that the extension and refurbishment of the chancery at the Australian Embassy, Beijing, proceed at an estimated cost of $21.6 million. I wish to thank my committee colleagues and all those who assisted with the public hearing, and I commend the report to the House.
111
17:07:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—by leave—I want to not only confirm and agree with the comments made by the Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the member for Pearce, regarding the works that will be undertaken at the Australian Embassy in Beijing, but also, on this our last opportunity of the year, acknowledge, along with the chair, the great work undertaken by all members and senators of the Public Works Committee—yourself included, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins. I also acknowledge the secretariat. I believe that this committee is one of the hardest working committees because of the constancy of work that is expected of it. I think that may be alleviated somewhat by an amendment that has been made to the act that will provide a higher threshold in public moneys before a work attracts the scrutiny of the committee. However, along with the committee members, I want to thank Margaret, John, Raymond and Peter, because I think they do a wonderful job; I know that John is in the chamber now. I think it is important to acknowledge the secretariat because of the great work that it does.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY OPPORTUNITIES AMENDMENT BILL 2006
111
BILLS
R2667
Referred to Main Committee
111
Mr BARTLETT
(Macquarie)
17:10:00
—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
MAIN COMMITTEE
112
MISCELLANEOUS
Treaties Committee
112
Reference
112
Mr BARTLETT
(Macquarie)
17:10:00
—by leave—I move:
That the following order of the day, committee and delegation reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate: Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—Report 81: Treaties tabled on 8 August 2006 (2)—Motion to take note of report: Resumption of debate.
Question agreed to.
ELECTORAL AND REFERENDUM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
112
BILLS
R2663
Report from Main Committee
112
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that the bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
112
Mr DUTTON
(Dickson
—Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer)
17:11:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
LAW AND JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MARKING OF PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES) BILL 2006
112
BILLS
R2534
Report from Main Committee
112
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that the bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
112
Mr DUTTON
(Dickson
—Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer)
17:12:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMONWEALTH RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
112
BILLS
R2656
DEFENCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
112
BILLS
R2621
Returned from the Senate
112
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING FOR REPRODUCTION AND THE REGULATION OF HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 2006
112
BILLS
R2651
Second Reading
112
Debate resumed.
112
17:12:00
Griffin, Alan, MP
VU5
Bruce
ALP
0
0
Mr GRIFFIN
—The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 is a difficult piece of legislation for many people—and understandably so. It has come to this place as a matter of conscience. We do not have many matters of conscience, as members would be aware, and that in itself provides a whole new dilemma for many of us. When it is normally a matter of government business, legislation is often considered through your internal party processes. You go to the question of your party’s policy. You review how it fits with respect to your own views and those of your party. You come to a conclusion as part of a group and go forth on that basis.
On an occasion such as this, the requirement is for you to take advice, not only from your community but also from experts, and to consider the matter. But at the end of the day you stand alone to make the decision as you see fit. There have been very few matters of conscience in the time that I have been here—some 13 years—but this is one; the earlier bill in 2002 which related to these issues was another; and, as I recall, there have only been two or three others. As such, as I said, this bill produces some special questions for members to consider.
It is also difficult because it is one of those occasions when often people in your community feel very strongly that there is a need to relay their particular concerns on the issue, often in emotive terms and, I have to say, always in heartfelt terms. I have had correspondence from my own area and from elsewhere in support of this legislation; I have also had correspondence very much against it. I do not question the beliefs of those on either side of that debate. I do sometimes question the language that they use, but I have no doubt that people believe what they say when they raise the matter of what should be done regarding this particular piece of legislation and that those views are solemnly held.
In trying to come to a decision about this particular bill, I tried to spend a little time looking at the debate. I was in fact on the earlier Andrews committee, as it has become known, for the last nine or 10 months of that committee’s consideration of the issue, and I came to a number of conclusions at that time. I do not think it would be a surprise to anyone that my views are still basically consistent with the view that I took at that time, though, of course, in some respects the debate has moved on. I also took the time to go back to what I said in the debate on that previous occasion. A number of things that I said then still hold true now, or at least hold true in terms of my own views on this difficult and vexed issue. Back in 2002, I said:
What can we say about this debate? We can say a few things, and one is that, as someone who has spent a fair bit of time looking at this, I am not sure what will end up being the case in regard to scientific research in this area, both in terms of adult stem cells and in terms of embryonic stem cells. With my knowledge, which is limited and that of a layman, with respect to research in these areas, the one thing that is clear is that the jury is still out. There is evidence with respect to adult stem cells that suggests we will see some major achievements on behalf of humankind in the years to come. There is evidence to suggest that the same thing may well happen with embryonic stem cells. I do not know about this because I am not a scientist, I am not an expert in this field, and one is getting, on a regular and continuing basis, evidence that suggests things both ways. We are certainly seeing a situation where proponents of both sides of the cause are endeavouring to deflate or inflate particular claims to assist their own particular views with respect to this issue.
When this matter was being considered by the committee the circumstances were that overwhelmingly, but not entirely, medical experts who were involved in adult stem cells and in embryonic stem cells agreed on one thing: that research into both should continue and that, as is the case with medical research and as is the case with, for example, drug development in a range of areas, often where you go and how you get there is not quite that simple and developments in one can and will often assist developments in the other. The intention overall is to move forward in a way that ensures that society has better techniques to deal with the range of debilitating conditions that face people as they grow older or that they may have faced from an early age. So I do not think there is a convincing view one way or the other on the question of which research is best; I think both research areas are essential and ought to be progressed on that basis. It comes down to your ethical view and what you see as being the question here. I think that is the key.
There has been quite a bit of comment on the situation we face now in considering the Lockhart review. There has also been quite a bit of comment about the fact that the House had a view several years ago on stem cell research—the House voted unanimously on the previous occasion to block certain aspects of that particular type of research—and that we are now in fact altering that. Again I quote from my speech in 2002 on the system that we were constructing at that stage:
Will that system be perfect? No, I do not believe it will be perfect. Is it important to have a system? Yes, it is. Are we in a situation where we ought to be able to deal with the serious issues around this question? I believe we can, but I do not believe that, if the legislation passes this parliament and is then implemented, that will be the end of the story; not at all. For example, at the moment we are particularly dealing with the question of what we do with research into excess IVF embryos. I will be quite frank about this. As a member of the majority viewpoint on the Legislation and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I support the use of excess IVF embryos in the circumstances outlined. Depending on developments in the future, if evidence is produced to show that this research will be successful in dealing with the range of conditions that have been mentioned—and that is a big if—then I would be prepared to consider other aspects of therapeutic cloning that have been talked about in relation to treatments in this area, but not now.
That was the point of the committee; that was the point of the legislation having a sunset clause with respect to considering this issue again in terms of where we go. I do not believe the circumstances are there now to say that is necessarily the way forward and I want to be able to look at that again in future if required. I hope it is required or that adult stem cells have advanced to a stage where that research takes care of those issues and we do not have to deal with these ethical questions. But, if we have not got to that stage, my view is that we ought to consider those questions down the track. That is how you avoid the slippery slope in these circumstances: you put in place safeguards that allow you to revisit the issues and consider them in the circumstances.
I mentioned that I saw it very much as an ethical question. Again, I quote from that speech in 2002:
When we look at where we go from here, it gets down to that ethical question of the status of an embryo. What are we talking about here? Is this a human life or isn’t it? What happens to that human life? I am sorry, the arguments have been stated right across. I personally do not believe that an embryo at the age that we are talking about constitutes a human life or the potential development of a human life because it is not actually implanted. It is not in a situation where development is going to occur, and we know it is not going to occur ...
That was definitely my stated view at that time and I have not changed that view.
Where do we go from here? We are considering this legislation because the legislation we passed several years ago set up a review process. We are now here because of the review process and that is in line with what was agreed at the time. Those who would suggest that, by reviewing these things at the moment, we are effectively going back on what the parliament decided at that time are not actually correct. The parliament made a decision at that time to review these issues, particularly with regard to the question of somatic cell nuclear transfer—therapeutic cloning—in Australia. There was a moratorium. The fact of the matter is that there is no doubt that the matter was supposed to come back here for consideration depending on what was seen as the situation in the community. That is certainly what the Lockhart review sought to address. There have been many significant reports that have been surprisingly uniform in their recommendations of developments in this area. It should be noted that Australian scientists and scientific bodies have not differed from overall public opinion but have themselves pushed for strong nationally applied regulation of cloning and stem cells.
There have been a number of emotive points made on the ‘slippery slope’ argument. I stress that some of the emotive points that have been made by those who are, if you like, boosters for this form of research have also been quite unreasonable. My earlier speech had quite a few things to say about the way Professor Alan Trounson handled the debate from the pro research line. I think it was at times mischievous almost and certainly not helpful to the overall cause of having a proper, deliberative discussion on where we go. The fact is that when we are talking about cloning, as in the cloning of human beings, everyone is opposed.
It has also been argued that there will be a demand to push the time out beyond the 14-day limit, but there is absolutely no case for this, as the stem cells that are needed for SCNT begin to emerge from day five. Again, there is no need for it; therefore, it will not be done. If there were a need for it, then it would have to come back here, we would have to consider the issues and make a decision at that time. I think that, when those time lines start getting fiddled with or are proposed to be fiddled with, we then have a real issue that people should seek to consider and ought to consider under the circumstances.
Ethical considerations, as I said earlier, are very important. Different views are held by people with a great deal of passion across the chamber. It is quite understandable, and I have a great deal of respect for those who hold views different from mine on these particular issues, but we ought to note that that situation also exists in the community, not just in this parliament. Representatives as we are, the fact is that the views held within this chamber are also held in the wider community and they are diverse. There are varying moral and ethical issues which come into play. For example, in their submission to the 2006 Senate inquiry into the private member’s bill, the Lockhart committee said:
The Committee was acutely aware of the special moral status attached to embryos and the concerns that many groups, particularly Christian churches, had regarding their destruction. But the Committee also recognised that not all communities in Australia attach the same significance to the embryo and that other concerns, such as the need to care for the sick and vulnerable and respect the wishes of individuals, are also morally important.
Why are embryonic stem cells necessary? Again, as I mentioned earlier in my quote from the speech back in 2002, it is premature to choose one type of research over another. We have to test both premises. We have to look at what they both provide. There is no doubt that both of them—adult and embryonic—provide opportunities for real advances in science, but at this stage we cannot say how much. We need to make sure that we test both premises within the constraints of the law. If we do that, hopefully we will see medical advances into the future.
The Lockhart review also put the focus on a current anomaly which the proposed bill will address. The 2002 Australian legislation allowed for the creation of human embryonic stem cell lines from fertilised human eggs that have become surplus to the needs of IVF implantation, which means that they would never be implanted into the woman’s uterus. But the 2002 legislation currently does not allow the creation of such human embryonic stem cell lines derived from an unfertilised human egg in the SCNT process which would also never be implanted into the woman’s uterus. This is a logically and ethically inconsistent situation. Maintaining the consistent logic of its ethical and scientific argument, the Lockhart report recommends that legislation be drafted to allow the use of unfertilised eggs as well as fertilised eggs for the creation of stem cell lines. This bill would enable that to happen.
I will not go into detail on the progress of research. There is no doubt that a range of claims has been made. But I think we have to be aware, when we come to issues of research, that outrageous claims will at times be made, and they ought to be looked at and they ought to be tested. Much has been made of what happened in South Korea. The point about that is that claims were made, but those claims were also assessed. They were peer reviewed, they were found to false and they were then treated as they should have been and discredited. Again, just because there is some bad research does not mean that you stop research.
Another issue which has come up recently and had quite a bit of comment—it is great to see so many from the other side here to listen to me; I gather that is why they are here—is the issue of foetal tissue and the circumstances of it. The member for Bass has an amendment relating to the issue of opponents of cloning saying that using foetal tissue, including eggs, for cloning amounts to allowing for an aborted baby girl to be used as a parent of embryos which will then be destroyed. I think that is understandable as a point to be made, but I think it is alarmist in the extreme.
This bill would allow the creation of embryos from a type of foetal cell consistent with the objectives of the equivalent research on human embryos. This is simply an extension of existing legal access to foetal tissues for a promising line of research that is also being undertaken elsewhere in the world. The use of cadaver and foetal tissues for research is permitted under state legislation and underpinned by guidelines issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The guidelines regulating the use of foetal tissues are separate to those governing assisted reproductive technology research. The bill specifically prohibits the creation of IVF embryos from foetal precursor cells by prohibiting the implantation into the body of a woman of an embryo created from foetal precursor cells. The bill limits the permitted development of such an embryo to not more than 14 days after fertilisation.
There are some final points I would like to make about Australia’s legislative and regulatory approach to these issues. We should not lose sight of the importance of the fact that Australia has an excellent national legislative regime in this area—one that covers all ART and research activities in Australia no matter where they are conducted or how they are funded. The enactment of this bill will see this regime backed up with very strong oversight and penalties. This regime is also backed up with a series of NHMRC guidelines that address informed consent, institutional ethics approval and the ethics of working with human subjects. Senator Colbeck’s amendment to this bill in the Senate will mean that there will be an opportunity to look at the current state and territory laws which govern the donation of human tissue and organs and their use in research. Finally, because this is an area where science, medicine and public opinion are all moving forward, the bill requires another review like the Lockhart review to report to the Council of Australian Governments and both houses of parliament within four years. We should not resile from this responsibility to follow the consequences and implications of our votes on this bill and the act it will amend.
Regardless of where we stand personally on these issues, we must acknowledge that these issues have been the subject of very adequate public scrutiny and debate, that they represent the views of the majority of Australians who do look for the very real medical and scientific advantages which will inevitably result one day in some way and that Australia has taken a very middle-of-the-road approach that allows research in this difficult area to proceed under strict guidelines. We have not banned it and we have not adopted the blinkered American approach, where federally funded research is limited and hamstrung but anything is possible in the privately funded sector.
Australia has a proud and sound record of balancing ethical, scientific and regulatory constraints with innovative progress. Australian scientists have not broken the rules in the use of recombinant DNA and genetically modified organisms and cloning, and they are not looking to do so. Australians have been altruistic volunteer donors of blood, human eggs and sperm. Despite the desperate shortage of organs for transplantation and the fact that human organs and tissues and eggs can be sold in some countries, that does not happen here because the law does not allow it.
There have been too many scare campaigns based on pseudoscience or no science at all and too many foolish statements about slippery slopes and the lack of research outcomes that ignore the facts. Of course we must recognise, with great courtesy and respect, that there are those who cannot support this legislation, and they, in return, must acknowledge that, in this pluralistic society, there are many views on these issues and that ethics is not the purview of any one group.
The 2001 report on human cloning by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs addressed this. It said:
One view of the status of the embryo should not be imposed on society as a whole especially when to do so may be to the detriment of those with serious or debilitating illness or disease. There is also a broader duty to society to be taken into account …
We need to distinguish the ethical and moral arguments from the scientific and biological ones, and we need to understand that they both have a place and a right to be heard. From time to time in our political life, we are given the opportunity to make important decisions that shape the future and determine what sort of country we will be. I believe that this is one of those cases. We are fortunate to be given a conscience vote in this case, although this does not make the decision to be made any easier.
I will finish with a quote, again from my speech in 2002, which I think encapsulates where we are up to:
There is the question of where we go from here in this issue. I respect the views of everyone in this debate. I am hopeful that the decision that I am personally taking is the correct one. I do not know if it is the correct one. I do not believe any of us can be sure about it. I believe on balance, under the circumstances, that support for this legislation is the correct decision to take at this time. This is a matter which will be moving forward and has been moving forward at quite a pace. It is something that needs to be evaluated on a continuing basis. It needs to continue to have complete scrutiny both from the public and the community at large, from scientific researchers on all sides and from government to ensure that the potential excesses that could occur are avoided. In the circumstances, I believe these things can take place in a way which allows us to examine and progress some of the potential opportunities for research. If those opportunities are successful, great. If they are not, then I think we have to see where we go from there, but I support the legislation.
117
17:32:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—My contribution to this debate will be relatively short, and I hope very much to the point. It has, as the previous speaker said, been a difficult issue. I have indicated publicly in the past that I was unresolved in my own mind as to how to vote. I have not found this quite as easy an issue to reach a conclusion on as some of the other conscience votes that the parliament has had in recent years.
I was heavily influenced in that state of indecision by the enormous respect I held for the late John Lockhart, whom I knew quite well. He was a person of immense intelligence and great personal decency, which I know he brought to the conclusions of his review. Sadly his life ended very abruptly—abruptly in the sense that he died a few weeks after the report was tabled.
There has been a lot of discussion about the basis people are using to form their views on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and the extent to which one’s religious background and religious teaching can influence the conclusion they reach. As somebody who comes from what might loosely be called the mainstream of Protestant Christianity, I can recognise that Christian people of good conscience can reach diametrically opposed views on this legislation. I happen to have an enormous regard for Senator Kay Patterson, who sponsored this private member’s bill.
As always, a free vote brings out the best in parliament. I can respect very deeply the argument about the relief of human suffering, and I have wrestled with it, as has a person in the church whom I admire a great deal. Bishop Tom Frame indicated, when he spoke to the Sydney Morning Herald a few weeks ago, that as an Anglican bishop he was unresolved. He said: ‘I’m still unable to come to a conclusion that sits comfortably with my conscience. I’m not convinced that scientific experimentation on embryos is morally acceptable, but I’m sensitive to the needs of those who might benefit from the outcomes of the research.’ I do not think I could put my own view on this issue any more succinctly or any better than that.
I am not convinced, based on the evidence that has come forward in this debate, that the reasons behind why this parliament near-unanimously—or was it unanimously—voted in a particular direction some years ago have changed. I do not think the science has shifted enough to warrant the parliament changing its view, and for that reason I am going to vote against the bill. I am also, for another reason, going to vote against the bill—that is, I think we live in an age where we have slid too far into relativism. There must be some absolutes in our society. That is, in some senses, a religious or Christian view, but it is also an ethical view and it is a view of society that a person of no faith can hold very strongly.
I am not so censorious of alternative points of view in our community as to believe that you cannot, on balance, reach different points of view, but in the end you have to, as an individual, make a judgement on this. My own view is that to vote in favour of this bill is to embrace a relativist view of society and of the value of human life and what leads to it. This does, to use that cliche, get us perilously close to if not on to the slippery slope. It is a very big step indeed; it was a step this place was not willing to take some years ago, and I, therefore, will vote against this legislation.
If there is an amendment that has been mooted in the name of the member for Bass I will certainly vote in favour of that amendment and I hope that some who, whilst being on the other side of the debate, when it comes to the final crunch will consider supporting that. But after a lot of personal searching and some discussion with people close to me whose opinions I respect, but which I do not necessarily always follow, I have decided to vote against this legislation for the reason that, in the end, you have to take a stand for some absolutes in our society. I think what we are talking about here is a moral absolute, and that is why I cannot support the legislation.
119
17:37:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr RUDD
—Four years ago I spoke in the debate and voted on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill. I described my position then as one of that bill’s most reluctant supporters. Four years ago I found that debate to involve difficult questions of ethics and difficult questions of science. Four years later I find this debate to involve difficult questions of ethics and difficult questions of science.
Once again, unfortunately, there has been some inflammatory language used on both sides of the debate. This is in part because of passions legitimately raised about deep questions of life and deep questions concerning the preservation of life. In my mind each side of this debate is driven by, in the main, a deep compassion for human life—a deep compassion but differently understood. Therefore, this is a debate where no side should be arguing any absolute moral position, as if they have a monopoly of moral conscience. I certainly, in advancing the position which I will be putting to the parliament soon, do not argue such a position. For me this is again a complex question and, like the Prime Minister, I have actually spent a long time wrestling with the complexity of this debate.
When I last participated in this debate back in 2002 I referred then to the fact that my mother was a Parkinson’s sufferer. Parkinson’s is a truly terrible disease. It involves symptoms of the face, not being able to move, tremors—sufferers feel as if they are trapped in their own bodies. Many members in this place, I know, have family who have suffered from this terrible disease. The member for Petrie is one. I do not know if she is in the chamber at present. Her father is a sufferer. I attended a bipartisan fundraiser with her in Brisbane, not for our respective political parties—that would be odd—but for Parkinson’s Queensland.
I asked my mum then for her views on that vote four years ago. My mother was a Catholic from central casting. Her response when I put to her the question of what I should do in this vote was: ‘In the great traditions of the Church, Kev, that is a question for your conscience, not mine.’ She added that if it really helped, then maybe, just maybe, if you are talking about embryos left over from IVF—IVF of course being designed for the propagation of human life—they could be used. I voted for the legislation four years ago. Mum died two years ago, so she is not here to ask about this one.
She was treated by a marvellous doctor, Dr Peter Silburn, a leading Brisbane neurologist. I spoke to Dr Silburn recently about the current bill and its impact upon his current Parkinson’s research. Dr Silburn told me—and I hope I do not misrepresent him—that his research critically depends on adult stem cell research and not embryonic stem cell research and not the matters covered by this legislation.
Others from the medical science community have stated that they have different research needs. I understand that and respect that. I do not challenge the motivation behind their submissions to members of parliament and to the parliamentary committee which has looked at these matters in recent times. But we in this place are still left with dealing with the questions of ethics which underpin the legislation.
Many have asked what influence the Christian churches should have on ethical debates of this type. I have said before that the Christian churches are as entitled to engage in this debate as anyone else in the community. The Christian churches do not have a monopoly when it comes to questions of ethics. Fundamental ethical questions can be shaped by a range of theological and philosophical traditions. Four years ago I tried to put it in these following terms:
On the matter of ethics, I referred earlier to the guiding principles that I seek to apply to my conscience in the deliberations on the bill. These are principles that embrace the equal worth of all humanity, the protection of the weak from the strong, the minimisation of suffering, if suffering itself cannot be eliminated, and the contribution to the social good, not just the individual good, and in all things truth ...
That is what I said back then. My view has not changed much since then.
In previous conscience votes in this parliament these considerations—these ethical guidelines for me—have caused me to vote in favour of embryonic stem cell research in the 2002 bill and also in the other conscience vote to vote in favour of RU486 after much, much soul searching. I find it much more difficult to do so on this occasion with the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The reason is this: I find it very difficult to support a legal regime that results in the creation of a form of human life for the single and explicit purpose of conducting experimentation on that form of human life. Furthermore, I am concerned about the crossing of such an ethical threshold and where that may lead in the long term. For these reasons I will not be supporting the legislation, based on the information that is currently available to me.
I claim no moral superiority in this view whatsoever. We are all in this place on the basis of what we believe and we must be true to our beliefs. In reaching this decision I am acutely conscious of the hopes that those suffering from terrible diseases such as Parkinson’s and others have in future scientific research and innovation which, in their view, would proceed from the legislation, should it pass the House. I say again that it was for those reasons that I voted in favour of the legislation four years ago, but I cannot in conscience cross a further threshold now when we look at the legislation which is before us.
I realise that in taking this decision, which I have not taken lightly, I will disappoint many. But I have to be true to myself, even when it may be unpopular. Some say that, if you have such views on the creation of human embryos for experimentation, it mandates a classically conservative approach to a range of questions. I do not agree. I do not believe that Christian beliefs mandate a conservative position on human sexuality. These are very much matters for the individual—individual choices which should be respected, just as the privacy of people’s personal relationships should be respected.
However, questions concerning the protection of human life, in my mind, are of a different quality and therefore require a different quality of response. On the question of Christian teachings and beliefs, of course beyond these questions there are much broader questions of social justice and what we do in terms of the great questions of poverty and injustice in our country and around the world today. Based on these considerations and deliberations, I simply register to the House that I will not be supporting the legislation which is before it.
120
17:46:00
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
0
Mr VAILE
—The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 that is being debated before the House is quite rightly one that has been categorised as being for individual members to exercise their own conscience and values on in judging whether it should be supported. From the outset, when this was first mooted to be moved as a private member’s bill in the other place, I made very publicly clear my view that it should be opposed. When we considered the recommendations of John Lockhart, I, along with others, supported the cabinet’s decision to reject them, particularly that recommendation with regard to therapeutic cloning. I should put on the record my admiration for John Lockhart and the work that he has done within his profession. In fact, I supported his nomination as one of the arbiters in the World Trade Organisation, and he did Australia proud in that position. He diligently went through the process of assessment in the task that he had undertaken in this regard, but I still believe that that recommendation was wrong.
When confronted with the sorts of decisions that are a part of this debate, I have always been a believer in the individual’s choice. In making that choice, you always reach back to your fundamental personal values that were often a part of your family upbringing and the environment in which each one of us was brought up. And that is certainly the circumstance in my case. I believe the object of this bill is morally wrong. It is an example of how good people can be seduced by the prospect of miracles into making terrible mistakes.
Four years ago this parliament passed the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act. Those acts prohibit both reproductive and therapeutic human cloning. They prohibit the creation of human embryos except with the aim of achieving a pregnancy. They permit research to be carried out on excess embryos created through artificial reproductive technology. This bill would allow the creation of human embryo clones, but they would be marked for destruction after 14 days. This bill would create two classes of human beings in Australia—first, those embryos that were created through the normal process of procreation and birth, and, second, the embryos that were doomed not because of the risks involved in the pregnancy but because of this parliament’s decision to allow researchers to create them and then destroy them. All of those embryos are human, because human life begins at conception.
I am reminded of a novel called Never Let Me Go and a similar movie called The Island. The novel was actually nominated for the Booker Prize last year. Sometimes the best way that we can put our views into perspective is to see them mirrored in fiction. This novel tells the story of children who grow up at what appears to be an exclusive private school, but by the end of the book we discover that the children are clones and were created to be organ donors. There is even a euphemism for what happens when their last organs are harvested in this fictional book. They are not said to die; they are said to ‘complete’.
If we reflect on history, sometimes today’s fiction has a habit of becoming tomorrow’s reality. I am sure supporters of the bill may be horrified at some of the analogies and the graphic commentary that is being used in this debate. They would say that there is an enormous difference between cloned embryos that are killed at 14 days and living men and women, fictionally, that might be created and used to harvest organs. Maybe they are right, but the difference is only by degree—because if you believe in the fundamental principle that the human being is created at conception then it is only by degree. In some respects the fate of the real cloned embryos would be even worse than the fate of the imaginary children in that fictional novel. At least these fictional clones knew the feel of the sunlight on their faces and you could imagine that some of them were even able to escape.
This bill would inevitably open the way to even more experimentation and more radical technologies. It includes its own mechanism to generate pressure for more amendments, because it would require another independent review in three years time. In three years the changes in this bill will be seen as part of the legal landscape—as the basis for a review that would use the amended act as its starting point for making further amendments rather than looking at the original act and recognising that it was wrong. It is like a ratchet. Once you have agreed to experiment on excess embryos, it is not a huge step to agree to therapeutic cloning. Once you have agreed to therapeutic cloning, it is not that much of a leap to agree to reproductive cloning. Step by step, review by review, this parliament is in danger of passing laws that it would have rejected outright if they had all been introduced at the same time, in a relative sense.
The supporters of the bill argue that it would open the way to medical breakthroughs in the treatment of diseases like Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and maybe even some cancers. I am a survivor of cancer—one of the most invasive cancers that is known to human beings. But, through medical research and science as we know it today, we are finding cures for many of what have historically been incurable diseases. Our government has announced that we are going to introduce one for cervical cancer to the broader population as soon as possible. But science as we know it today is doing that.
It would be wonderful to be able to cure all of these diseases, but I believe the cost is too great if it can only be done by experimenting on cloned embryos and then destroying them. It would introduce a great and devastating sadness into the heart of our health system. Everyone cured with these treatments would have to live with the knowledge that their health was only possible because of the deliberate creation and then destruction of human lives.
I have no doubt, knowing all the people involved in this debate, that the supporters of this debate mean well. They are good people and want to achieve the worthwhile result of curing terrible diseases. We all want that outcome. But I believe their good intentions have led them to a terrible mistake—as I described it, a sort of ratchet mechanism that keeps dragging us forward and doing more and more and more, and ending up moving towards that fictional outcome written in the novel I mentioned. We must not attempt to achieve good ends through what I believe are immoral means. I urge the House to vote against this bill. I, too, will support the mooted amendment if it comes forward. But I will be voting against the substantive bill.
122
17:54:00
Tollner, David, MP
00AN4
Solomon
CLP
1
0
Mr TOLLNER
—There are strong arguments for opposing the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, and equally there are strong arguments for supporting its passage through this House. The arguments are technically complex but also require members to reach their own moral, ethical and reasoned conclusions. I respect all of the views expressed by members who have contributed to this debate without fear or favour, and I have listened closely to their contributions.
This debate is about saving life. However you look at it, whether you support the bill or oppose the bill, it is fundamentally about saving life. I can easily understand why those who have family members suffering from, for example, Parkinson’s disease would find it difficult to say no to a possible life-saving treatment that may be availed by a yes vote on this bill. I also have the opinion that research should not be pushed underground into underfunded, unregulated Frankenstein’s monster types of black markets and that responsibly governed bodies like the National Health and Medical Research Council are well placed to monitor and regulate licences and practices in this contentious environment. Yes, there is an argument that one life should not be created and then destroyed for the purpose of saving another life. I would suggest, however, that the diggers who were conscripted against their will and who sacrificed their own lives so that others could live in a better world might well argue an opposing view.
Conversely, as a father I have great regard for the concern expressed to me by Rachel Jenner, a young Territory mother in my electorate of Solomon. Rachel advised that she saw, via ultrasound, her two sons when they were only eight cells big, or three days old. To her, that image represented life and hope in the future and, to her, those eight cells were sacrosanct. To her mind, embryos are sacrosanct.
I also share the concerns that there are health risks for women with regard to egg harvesting as well as the concern that women will be exploited in order for scientists to gain access to more eggs. I am also concerned that there are dangers, such as cancer formation, inherent in the research and clinical application of human embryonic stem cells.
I would love to be able to say thank you to all those people and groups in my electorate who have taken the time to inform me of their views on this issue. However, considering the high-profile nature and fundamental importance of this very public debate, there has been an extraordinarily low response from my electorate. Unfortunately, I must inform this place that I have been given no clear direction at all from my constituents on this matter. I have received two pieces of correspondence in favour of supporting the bill and two pieces of correspondence opposing support for the bill. I of course sincerely thank these people for contacting me. I took it upon myself to go out and actively canvass the issue in my electorate to find out what people really think. I and my office staff contacted many of our friends and associates, and what we found was that sentiment was split fifty-fifty down the middle and that this issue, if our straw poll reflected the views of constituents, is not a matter of high importance to the vast majority of people in Solomon. Therefore, due to this bill offering hope to people with dreadful afflictions but at the same time being ethically and morally debatable, and due to the fact that I have no clear direction at all from my constituents, my conscience tells me that I must abstain from the voting process.
123
17:58:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
1
0
Mrs HULL
—In 2002 I stood in this House and made a speech and, having made a difficult decision, I voted in favour of the research on surplus IVF embryos that were to be disposed of because they were no longer required and were destined to expire down a drain or through some other way of disposing of surplus IVF embryos. At the same time, I strongly opposed any attempt to introduce therapeutic cloning. At that time, the very best scientists and researchers met with us on a constant basis and every time I was guaranteed, as a member of this parliament, that therapeutic cloning would not be necessary and was not necessary if scientists could access surplus IVF embryos that would, as I said, unfortunately be disposed of.
During the briefing sessions for the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 I have constantly asked the question: ‘What has changed since 2002 and what advancements have been made such that we would need to make the decision to build upon those advancements?’ There has been no response to my question other than the acting chair of the Lockhart committee advising me, within a forum, that IVF embryos are perfect, as only perfect embryos are kept for implantation, and that scientists need those stem cells that are imperfect in order to research genetic and other diseases.
From my investigations I believe that the reality of the situation is that there have been no real significant advances in embryonic stem cell research since 2002. The status, in my understanding, is that there have been nine licences issued, and I have the nine licences here. I have viewed and searched every single licence to understand them. They have authorised research on excess IVF embryos. One licence was to train in the techniques of embryo biopsy to enable embryologists to remove a cell or cells from an embryo and leave it in a suitable condition for subsequent implantation. It was subsequently ruled that this should not take place, as there seemed to be an ethical issue around that research and similar research in the United States. Four licences were to research techniques to improve IVF and four licences were to derive human embryonic stem cell lines.
In 2002 there was significant pressure applied by those affected by spinal injury, and I had a very strong feeling about this. These people applied pressure and urged us to support embryonic stem cell research; yet in 2006, from my knowledge and my research of these licences, there has not been a clinical trial involving embryonic stem cell research for spinal injury. So the availability of embryonic stem cells for research purposes has not at this time yielded any viable success to assist me within this debate.
On my reading of the Senate inquiry submissions and the Lockhart report, I determined that many submissions supported the removal of the prohibition on the basis of research by the Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk, who published results claiming that human embryos had been successfully cloned and that patient-specific stem cell lines had been derived from those cloned embryos. This claim has since been found to be a major scientific fraud, as he had not in fact had any such breakthrough.
I can understand people in my electorate and others who suffer from genetic or other illnesses or injuries desperately pinning their hopes on the outcome of this bill and the continuing research. Probably everyone in this House who has spoken has experienced a loved one’s illness that has had us wishing for a miracle cure. I wished for a miracle cure when my 28-year-old brother died from cancer. I wished for a miracle cure when, very soon after, my father died from cancer. I wished again for a miracle cure when, soon after that, my mother died from cancer. But it did not come. I understand the clear desire to have something available to keep life going.
I cannot help but wonder why proponents are not doing this research, as others have mentioned, on animals first, as is done in most other research. Why do we embark on this path of creation with human stem cells? Surely having it done on animals first would be a better way to demonstrate it. I recall in 2002 seeing a graphic descriptive video of a mouse that had been paralysed and stem cells seemed to have provided the mouse with movement. In fact, it influenced me greatly in making my decision in 2002, yet now I have many questions to ask on that video and the process.
In 2002 I was assured that it was almost a reality that if stem cells were made available then new tissue would be created to replace those organs that were damaged and that spinal injuries would be treated to enable a quadriplegic to regain movement, and perhaps enough movement to walk again. The use of excess embryos was enabled through legislation that I clearly voted for, yet there has been no success in four years that has seen the triggering of stem cells to grow organs with the use of perfect excess embryos; and yet we are now being asked to vote for a bill to create embryos for a number of reasons, including that we need imperfect embryos to research genetic deficiencies.
I have been quoted in my local paper as having said that I do not trust scientists. What I said was that scientists had relied on what they believed to be proven scientific research when making their submissions to the Lockhart review. This scientific research has since been found to be fraudulent, so how can these views be completely trusted when the evidence that they have substantially relied on was not correct? I have been very concerned to learn of teratomas, aggressive malignant tumours, forming during stem cell research that has been undertaken. I was alarmed to read in the Sydney Morning Herald that Professor Sherley was quoted as saying that by suggesting we can solve the tumour problem we are equally saying we may solve the cancer problem. Experience tells me that this is almost impossible.
I have thought long and hard about this debate. I ask what may seem like very silly questions, like: ‘When you develop a cell line that can grow new tissue in someone’s body, how do you program the cell to stop growing tissue?’ and the answer has been that we need more research to find out. But surely more of this work should be done on the surplus embryos available before asking the parliament to enable the creation of embryos for further research. I simply cannot get clear answers or comfort from the proponents to allay my concerns. And whilst I found the decision in 2002 difficult, I was very comfortable with my decision to vote for the bill at that time. This decision does not lead me to being at all comfortable. I am not comfortable with the majority of the aspects of this bill, and I therefore cannot give it my support.
125
18:07:00
Washer, Dr Mal, MP
84F
Moore
LP
1
0
Dr WASHER
—in reply—I would like to thank everyone who participated in this debate. I think the debate has been a good debate from both sides, my opponents’ side and supporters’ side. I note that Kay Patterson is in the chamber behind me. She did a wonderful job. I also want to thank in particular Natasha Stott Despoja, Ruth Webber, Claire Moore and all the people here for putting this bill together. It is a fabulous piece of work. Basically I do not want to discuss this too much more; I want to just thank people. I want to thank the scientists. I think they put a lot of effort into the Lockhart review. Mrs Juliet Lockhart is up in the gallery. Juliet, thanks for being here and for all your husband’s great work. It was a tremendous job and it was a sensational committee.
Basically, the fact is undeniable that the wider our net of research the more we enable our great scientists to have ethical research, and this is ethical research, and the greater our possibilities of finding treatments for those chronic and intractable diseases that are 70 per cent of the afflictions that our population suffers. No-one can deny the reality that the more we open our avenues of research, the greater our possibilities of finding treatments for these horrific diseases that affect our population. So no-one can argue against the science.
On the ethics, everyone is entitled to their view, and I respect their view. Kay Hull, who has just spoken, is a good friend of mine and I respect her view too. I think everyone has done this with great sincerity. However, the ethics are based on a falsehood. What I hear is not anything to do with the mammalian or human science that I have been taught as a medical doctor. There are no life forms unless we have an embryo—that is true—to start with. But it has to then go through the procedure of intrauterine implantation and be there in that uterus in a successful way and grow for at least 20-plus weeks to have any life or success of life. Anything short of that is a hoax.
The contraceptive pill used by 30 per cent of our women, for example, stops implantation of fertilised embryos, which are fertilised in the tube but do not implant in the uterus. The same argument would stop the use of contraceptive pills, would stop the use of the intrauterine contraceptive device and of course would make us implant every embryo from IVF programs into our women. Who would condone that? Italy does actually have a law like that. If we tested for abnormality, all the normal ones would have to be implanted—otherwise we would be unethical under the debate I have heard, which argues against my point of view. That is quite unreasonable. In fact, it is frankly ridiculous. But, if you extrapolate, that is what you are talking about.
This debate today is about allowing our scientists with those in the rest of the major countries in the world, including the US of A, the UK, Singapore, Israel, Sweden, China, Japan, South Korea et cetera, to cooperate in a global struggle to treat these horrible diseases, many of which have been mentioned today. Are we close? Yes, we are close. Just recently Nature, a top magazine, reported that human embryonic cell generated pancreatic tissue generating insulin and other pancreatic hormones was developed and stabilised. The reality is that we may not be so far away. No-one can promise what is going to happen tomorrow, but there is no justification to stop our scientists researching what is now part of a global phenomenon.
The other thing I want to mention and remind people of is that three states at least in this country will legislate to have this technology made legal. I think without national leadership that would be a crying shame. So if the debate is lost, it will happen anyway. People who debated against it will use the products of it, as normally happens, and they are entitled to do that. I do not deny them that. But I think they have to remember that it is for their kids. If they do not want it for themselves, why not want it for their kids and grandkids? I am sure we will have breakthroughs.
Chris Pyne is a good friend of mine. Chris, I am sorry to use names here. I admired your speech and your sincerity. We have amendments. Chris is a genuine man. I listened very carefully to what he said. I have a great affection for him. He does not share my views on this, but I have a great affection for him that is very sincere. He said he found this bill to be so repugnant to him—those might not have been his exact words but Chris will correct me—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Near enough.
84F
Washer, Dr Mal, MP
Dr WASHER
—and therefore why would you have amendments when you were never going to vote for this bill anyway? I will speak to the amendments later in more detail; this is not the appropriate time for me to do that. But I admire your stance, Chris. I think more members of this House should do that, and I hope the people on your side of this debate respect your views. I certainly do. With that, I will sit down and let it get on.
Question put:
That this bill be now read a second time.
18:17:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
82
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Bevis, A.R.
Billson, B.F.
Bird, S.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cobb, J.K.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Downer, A.J.G.
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Georgiou, P.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Haase, B.W.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Henry, S.
Hoare, K.J.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Keenan, M.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Laming, A.
Lawrence, C.M.
Ley, S.P.
Livermore, K.F.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Macklin, J.L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Prosser, G.D.
Roxon, N.L.
Ruddock, P.M.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thompson, C.P.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vamvakinou, M.
Washer, M.J.
Wilkie, K.
Wood, J.
62
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andren, P.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Costello, P.H.
Danby, M. *
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hayes, C.P.
Howard, J.W.
Hull, K.E. *
Jull, D.F.
Katter, R.C.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Lloyd, J.E.
Markus, L.
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Murphy, J.P.
Neville, P.C.
O’Connor, G.M.
Pearce, C.J.
Price, L.R.S.
Pyne, C.
Quick, H.V.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Ripoll, B.F.
Robb, A.
Rudd, K.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Thomson, K.J.
Truss, W.E.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Question agreed to.
19:29:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. IR Causley)
53
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andren, P.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Byrne, A.M.
Cadman, A.G.
Ciobo, S.M.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Emerson, C.A.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hayes, C.P.
Henry, S.
Howard, J.W.
Hull, K.E. *
Jull, D.F.
Katter, R.C.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Lloyd, J.E.
Markus, L.
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Murphy, J.P.
Neville, P.C.
O’Connor, G.M.
Pearce, C.J.
Price, L.R.S. *
Pyne, C.
Richardson, K.
Robb, A.
Rudd, K.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Truss, W.E.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Windsor, A.H.C.
76
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bailey, F.E.
Bevis, A.R.
Billson, B.F.
Bird, S.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cobb, J.K.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Georganas, S.
Georgiou, P.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Haase, B.W.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hoare, K.J.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Keenan, M.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Laming, A.
Lawrence, C.M.
Ley, S.P.
Livermore, K.F.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Macklin, J.L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Prosser, G.D.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thompson, C.P.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vamvakinou, M.
Washer, M.J.
Wilkie, K.
Wood, J.
Question negatived.
Consideration in Detail
127
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
127
18:31:00
Ferguson, Michael, MP
DYH
Bass
LP
1
0
Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON
—by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2):
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (lines 17 to 27), omit section 23A, substitute:
23A Offence—using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human fetus to create a human embryo, or developing such an embryo
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
The second reading stage of this debate has been concluded. The House, in principle, has agreed to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. Accepting that result, it is appropriate, fair and reasonable for a member to move amendments which could do one of two things: either improve this bill while it is in this House or make it less bad, depending on your perspective.
Mr Speaker, through you, I appeal to my colleagues, my fellow members of the House of Representatives, to look once more into their conscience, to reflect on what their communities would be looking for in their home electorates and to challenge themselves, as I have, about the prospect of returning home to our electorates, eye-balling our constituents and admitting that the opportunity to remove a very ugly section of this bill was not taken.
The fact of the matter is that the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 contains the exact recommendation reflected in recommendation 27 of the Lockhart review. If passed as it now stands, this would allow the creation of embryos using an aborted baby girl’s immature eggs. This is presently prohibited by law. If this bill passes as it stands that will change. My amendments preserve the current prohibition on the use of precursor cells from a foetus for the creation of an embryo. None of us should be left in any doubt about this—it is to maintain a current prohibition.
In plain terms, if this bill succeeds in this House without amendment, it will be quite possible in the future under Australian law for an aborted female foetus to become the mother, if you like, of an embryo which will itself eventually be destroyed by research. This proposition has been rejected by the British parliament. It has been rejected in the United States, by former President Clinton. The issue has resurfaced as recently as 2003 in Israel, where Dr Tal Biron-Shental announced that her team had successfully conducted work on maturing egg follicles from the ovarian tissue of seven aborted human foetuses ranging from 22 to 33 weeks gestation—very late term.
That report led to widespread condemnation from around the world of the proposal that these eggs could be used for IVF treatment and, indeed, further research. Eggs could only be derived from aborted foetuses of at least 16 weeks gestation. The method of abortion would have to result in the foetal body being delivered intact and as near to alive as possible in order to harvest the ovarian tissue while it was still fresh, and immediately frozen for its subsequent use. Mr Speaker, I apologise for the graphic nature of that description, but it can be made no more politely than that.
My friend and colleague the member for Moore, in his speech in the second reading debate on this bill, addressed this question. He said:
Human foetal tissue is already accessible to Australian researchers and has been available since 1980.
He went on to say:
This is simply an extension of existing legal access to foetal tissue already occurring in Australia and in other countries in the world.
It is true that there is already legal access to some foetal tissue for some research purposes in Australia and, indeed, in other countries. However, there is a significant, profound medical and moral difference between using foetal tissue such as bone, pancreas or liver tissue in laboratory research and taking precursor cells—that is, cells with a reproductive capacity from an aborted foetus—not just for the purpose of some weighing or analytical chemical composition research but for the purpose of creating an embryo. It is a quantum shift in Australian science which is being proposed today.
I urge my colleagues to accept these amendments. We will of course, as we all must, accept that this House has in principle agreed to this bill. I am disappointed about that, but as the member for Bass I take my right to speak up and, if I can, to salvage some aspect of this bill and to have the ugliest aspect removed. I believe it is consistent with the reasonable expectations of the people from my community. As hard as it is to speak on behalf of such a large number of people, I believe it is fair to say that this expectation would be reflected around Australia. I commend the amendments to the House.
129
18:37:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
0
Ms GILLARD
—I rise to speak against the amendments moved by the member for Bass. In my contribution I want to explain to members of the House the amendments and details of the use of foetal tissue in Australian research currently. I also want to advance some arguments as to why people should vote against the amendments. In starting my contribution, I acknowledge that people of the greatest goodwill can differ on these sorts of issues that are before the House. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his contribution, there is no monopoly on morality here. I believe that people are trying seriously to deal with these issues and I make my contribution in that vein.
If the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 is amended and returned to the Senate, we face the reality that it may not pass the Senate again. People who support the bill ought to weigh that fact when they weigh their attitude to these amendments. Of course, I cannot know what the Senate would do with an amended bill returned to it. But, on the best advice available to me from senators who supported the bill in the form in which it has been brought to this House, I am informed that an amended bill may not survive in the Senate. I think supporters of the bill need to consider that matter of fact.
The amendments moved by the member for Bass deal with foetal tissue. Of course, this is not a nice subject for discussion; I acknowledge that. But I think we also have to acknowledge that, under very carefully regulated conditions, foetal tissue has been allowed to be used for research purposes in Australia since 1980—that is, for some 26 years scientists have had access to foetal tissue.
The current regulations involve approval from an institutional human research ethics committee; compliance with state or territory legislation; the NHMRC’s national statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans; and supplementary note No. 5, the human foetus and the use of foetal tissue. Importantly—this has been very important in my thinking—there must be consent from the parents of the foetus. The guidelines stipulate that the human foetal tissue must be from medical terminations of pregnancy of less than 20 weeks gestation and where the weight of the foetus is less than 400 grams.
What does this legislation provide? This legislation provides that precursor cells obtained from foetal tissue may be used for the purposes of somatic cell nuclear transfer. That is, a precursor cell obtained from foetal tissue may be combined with an egg from which the nucleus has been removed to create an embryo, as that definition appears in this legislation, which could be the subject of research and which must be discarded at the end of 14 days development.
Why would you want to use such material for the purposes of research? I think all of us are aware that there can be gross abnormalities in foetuses. People who want to have babies may be advised, when pregnant, that their baby, if born, will have a gross abnormality. People faced with that hugely difficult decision will make all sorts of ethical choices—and I do not seek to reflect on any choice that a person might make in those most tragic of circumstances—and some will choose to terminate the pregnancy. If they then consent to the use of the foetal tissue, the foetal tissue with the abnormality in the genetic code can be used through embryonic stem cell research to create stem cells that might help us to understand why that gross abnormality has arisen. This is true of syndromes like Tay-Sachs. The truth is that babies born with that condition will die in horrible pain; so researchers seek access to this kind of research to stop that happening.
It is a difficult choice, I agree; but I think it is a choice that this House should make. I think we should note that foetal tissue is available for research now. I think we should vote against the amendments. I understand that there will be differences of opinion amongst members of this House, but that is my recommendation. I will be voting against the amendments and for the bill in its current form to become Australian law.
130
18:41:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
0
Mr ABBOTT
—I rise to support the amendments, which have been well and eloquently moved by the member for Bass. In so doing, I wish to comment on a couple of points that have been raised by the member for Lalor. This is complicated and, at the end of these comments, I will table some advice from the Parliamentary Library that I think casts some light on these matters. But the points I want to make essentially are these.
As things stand, it is impossible at law to use eggs from aborted foetuses for research or other purposes. Yes, it is possible to use material from aborted foetuses for other purposes; but, as things stand, it is not possible to use eggs from aborted foetuses for research or for other purposes. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, as moved by Senator Patterson in the Senate and as passed by this House at its second reading stage, would permit eggs from aborted foetuses to be used for research purposes and for cloning. That is the first point I want to make.
The second point I want to make is that, yes, a regulatory regime is in place for the use of material from aborted foetuses—and that has been referred to by the member for Lalor. But the bill we have just passed does not make that regulatory regime mandatory. If the member for Lalor were to be consistent, she would seek to move a different amendment perhaps to those which the member for Bass has moved. But, with the way this bill stands, she does not ensure that the regulatory regime that normally would cover the use of material from aborted foetuses applies to eggs taken from aborted foetuses for the purposes of research or cloning. So under this bill, if it is not amended in the way proposed by the member for Bass, there will be a perfect ability for researchers to use eggs from aborted foetuses. There will be no necessary regulatory regime covering this.
I point out to the member for Lalor and others that the bill we have just read a second time does require that there will be licensing restrictions in other respects but specifically not in this respect, and that is why I think the amendments moved by the member for Bass are so important to remove perhaps the most objectionable feature of this bill. Certainly I regard this bill as bad in principle, but I think it is incumbent upon members of this parliament to try to improve legislation. Even if we believe that the legislation is bad in principle, it is incumbent on us to try to make it as unobjectionable as possible. I think that the amendments of the member for Bass do that. To assist the House, I table the Parliamentary Library’s advice.
131
18:45:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
0
Mr MURPHY
—I too rise to support these amendments and I congratulate the member for Bass for this initiative. I do not believe that it is a valid argument that, if these amendments are supported, this will then put the Senate in a position where it has to reconsider the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, having passed it before it came to this place. When you look at these conscience votes, they have historically been initiated here before they went to the Senate. I am most concerned at the lobbying that was done and the way that the bill was introduced into the Senate to get it through the Senate.
My friend and colleague the member for Menzies chaired the cloning inquiry from 2000 to 2002. I was on that committee, along with the member for Mitchell, and I have a clear recollection of visiting the Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development where we were shown all these embryonic stem cells which had been obtained from Singapore for the purposes of medical research. All that those scientists asked of us was that we would allow them to continue the research that they were doing and to have sufficient stem cells to supply the needs of Australia and possibly other parts of the world. That is true—and members know that. The legislation went so far as to allow them to have those surplus embryos for a finite period. That parliament supported that and the scientists went away in 2002 satisfied.
But we know that with scientists the ground is ever rolling out from under our feet. From the debate that has taken place in this place and in the Senate, I am certain we will be here in a few years time debating something else to do with thos legislation. If for no other reason than that the Senate passed this bill such a short time ago after a very political and skilful campaign by the scientific and cloning lobby, we—all of us who protect life from the womb to the tomb—have a duty to support these amendments to give the Senate another opportunity to put a search engine through its conscience. For me, this is not a scientific question; it is a moral question.
How can any of us possibly compete with the scientists? I have referred to the member for Menzies and the member for Mitchell, who are sitting here tonight and who were on that cloning inquiry. We cannot compete with the scientists. Of course the scientists are going to advance arguments. They gave us a legitimate expectation that someone like Christopher Reeve would perhaps one day get out of his wheelchair. Sadly for Christopher Reeve, he passed away. There was an expectation that people who suffer the terrible afflictions of motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s disease or diabetes would have some miraculous cure. We all know that there have been no significant gains in relation to that research over that period, nor is there any realistic likelihood that such will take place in the foreseeable future. I exhort every person in this place to support the amendments of the member for Bass. I exhort the Senate to once again examine its conscience, reconsider all the issues associated with this legislation and vote again—but this time to vote to defeat Senator Patterson’s bill.
132
18:50:00
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing
1
0
Mr PYNE
—I do not want to keep the House very long but I do want to clear up my own position on these amendments. In the substantive debate on the second reading of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, I made the point that to me this bill was so unacceptable and so objectionable that it was unable to be improved and that no amendment could make it an attractive bill because its basic tenets are completely antithetical to anyone who believes in a human life as the principal defining characteristic of a civilised society. I was unaware at that time that there would be amendments moved, but amendments have now been moved by my friend the honourable member for Bass, and it would be remiss of me not to vote in favour of these amendments. It would also be remiss of me not to explain to the House why I am changing my position from the original debate.
My view is that, if we can salvage anything from the wreckage of passing this bill 20 minutes ago, we should try and do so. If we can, by passing these amendments, stop the practice of extracting stem cells from aborted female foetuses, then it really is incumbent upon all right-thinking people to vote for these amendments in order to make the bill as unobjectionable as possible. In these few brief words, I would ask my colleagues to search their consciences and their views about this bill, forget about whether they voted in favour or against the second reading and think clearly about what these amendments propose. It is not a clever artifice designed to try and defeat aspects of the bill. These are genuine amendments that would stop the use of aborted female foetuses for the extraction of stem cells. I would ask people to vote for them.
132
18:52:00
Anderson, John, MP
4K4
Gwydir
NATS
1
0
Mr ANDERSON
—I say at the outset that amongst the scuttlebutt that has passed around the place is the sense, when it became evident that an amendment was going to be moved, that this was somehow a tricky device—‘stunt’ was the word used by some—to force it back into the Senate where perhaps there might be a different vote. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for being so frank as to say that she has a concern about that and to face that possibility front-on. This for me is not about a stunt at all. I do find this particular provision in a bill that I cannot support anyway to be quite odious. I have absolutely no doubt that every member of this House would have a very significant number of people in their electorates—I suspect a clear majority in every electorate—of good conscience and great decency who would be horrified to know that we had not put beyond doubt that it would not be defensible or legal in this country to create embryos using eggs from aborted female foetuses. I genuinely believe that. I ask all members of this place to stop and think what will happen when a person of decency whose views have to be respected asks them in their electorate why they did not take the opportunity to put this beyond doubt.
The advocates of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 have been trying to reassure us that there are sufficiently tight guidelines or, where there are no guidelines, that they will be devised over the next six months by the National Health and Medical Research Council. I make the observation that in the recent Senate inquiry there was a question put to the Lockhart members about whether their recommendation 26 that creation of embryos using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human foetus should be permitted under licence was intended to allow the creation of embryos by fertilisation using ova obtained from a foetus. Lockhart members on 25 October replied, ‘The committee’s recommendations envisaged that an embryo could be created for research in this way.’
The bill reflects the objectives of Lockhart. I thought that was what we were on about. So I can see no room for obfuscation here. In simple terms, the legal advice from the Parliamentary Library says that the result in effect of the amendments to the bill will be such that it will remove the licensing aspect of the activity in the bill, replacing it with a blanket prohibition. I cannot for the life of me see why that is not a reasonable and safe thing to do. I do not believe for a moment that, if the Australian people were fully aware of the possibilities allowed for under the licensing, this would be something they could embrace.
It is the end of the year and we all want to go home—no-one more than me, as I think is well known around this place; I have had 18 years in the place and I look forward to a different life—but if on a matter of this importance we want to say, ‘No, it should not go back to the Senate,’ we deserve the hearty condemnation of the people we represent. This is an important matter. It does go to very deeply held convictions in our society about the value and the sanctity of life upon which our very freedoms and our very culture are built. Many of us have a very real concern that our culture is under threat, that it is being weakened and that we are losing sight of the great values that made us the free people we are. Many of us and many of our constituents feel very deeply that it is time we called a halt—that in this relativist age we see, as the Prime Minister said, that there are some absolutes. I believe that one absolute we all ought to be prepared to embrace in all seriousness and we ought to put beyond doubt—and I say this with all the conscience I can muster despite the fact that it is close to Christmas and people want to go home—is that we are not going to allow the possibility of the creation of embryos from aborted female foetuses under any circumstances.
133
18:57:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
0
Dr NELSON
—It gives me no pleasure to disagree with the member for Gwydir, for whom I have a very high regard. I too want to go home, but there are a lot of people in this country who also want to live. In 1980, research on aborted foetuses was approved and it has occurred for the subsequent quarter of the century. As morally repugnant as any of us find the idea of research on an aborted foetus, the fact is that it has occurred and our understanding and treatment of many diseases, particularly those specific to women and ovarian diseases in particular, has progressed as a result of women who for a variety of reasons have agreed to have their aborted foetuses researched. In an ideal world there would be no aborted foetuses, and I have the highest regard for some of my colleagues sitting immediately behind me who have campaigned all of their lives to see that this is limited as much as it can be. The fact is that the law and the regulations and guidelines of the National Health and Medical Research Council restrict that research to foetuses less than 20 weeks, and that is very ably administered by the Minister for Health and Ageing.
The concept of conducting somatic cell nuclear transfer on a cell derived from an aborted foetus is, I agree with the member for Gwydir, something about which many of my constituents will say to me, ‘Dr Nelson, what is this all about? Why did you,’ as I will, ‘basically vote in support of that continuing?’ Firstly, the science at the moment is not yet sufficiently mature for that to be able to occur. It could proceed, however, under the legislation as it stands. Throughout all of the very detailed inquiries by the Senate committee, this issue was not specifically raised. That does not necessarily mean that all wisdom resides in the Senate inquiry.
But I would put to you that, if an aborted foetus has been provided by a woman for research, and if that research includes the production of an embryo through somatic cell nuclear transfer—governed by this legislation to exist for no more than 14 days and from that research give the kind of hope which is embedded in the science that is offered by it—then frankly I do not see an enormous amount of difference from what has actually been proposed. In fact, one could argue, as morally repugnant as it quite rightly is to many people in this parliament and to many people in the community, that in many ways it is different but provides the same outcome is an ovum produced from an adult woman.
With the greatest respect, I do not support the amendment. I admire the conviction and I admire the motives of those who put it up. And I too join with the member for Gwydir in criticising those who suggested that this is some sort of clever political ploy on the part of those who put it forward. I know the member for Bass very well, and I know that he has a longstanding conviction with regard to this. But with the greatest of respect, some of the things that have been said are not correct. I do not support the amendment.
134
19:01:00
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
1
0
Mrs MIRABELLA
—I would like to thank the member for Bass for this thoughtful amendment to the legislation in the final week of the parliamentary year. Many others are preoccupied with more frivolous activities perhaps, and everyone wants to get home, but I do think we have a responsibility to try to improve legislation. Even if we think that the intention of it is terrific and we support most of it, improvements should be made without fear that something else may happen to the bill in another place. I was quite moved by the words of the member for Gwydir, and there is much wisdom in those words.
In seeking to support this amendment, let us look at what it actually does. The amendment seeks to remove a provision in the bill that, if left to stand, will be a decisive step into darkness and into the sort of scientific depravity I talked of in my speech the other day. Let us not mince words; let us not try to obfuscate and use value-neutral words and talk about tissue. There is a huge difference between tissue and eggs. There may well be a longstanding practice in scientific circles in this country to use foetal tissue from aborted foetuses, but this is not tissue we are talking about; we are talking about eggs. If we were talking just about tissue, then aborted male foetuses could also be used. But we are talking about using the eggs from aborted foetuses, and this really does disturb me more than any other piece of legislation that has come to this House in my five short years here.
But why is the provision in the bill? Is it thought that aborted baby girls are already a source of eggs for cloning? Are they intended to make up for some sort of shortfall in adult women who can be persuaded to undergo the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation to donate eggs for cloning? Whatever the reason a woman is in a position that she needs to abort her baby, how dare we propose that a doctor be authorised to approach her and suggest that the aborted baby effectively be made a mother of a human embryo that will also be destroyed? This is sick science and this is bad law, and I urge every member of this House to support the amendment.
I cannot believe that every single person who supports the thrust of the bill feels comfortable with this particular provision. I hope they are prepared to stand on the record and be counted to prevent this quite bizarre but very real scenario from occurring if this amendment fails. I am a bit of a pessimist. I think that, even if this amendment gets up and is incorporated as part of the bill, the cloning bill will still pass. But it will be slightly improved and probably the most offensive part of it will have been excised. I cannot add to any of the words from the previous speakers in support of this amendment, but I wish to remind members of the House: let us not try to pretend these are some invisible bits of tissue from some unwanted and rejected foetus. We are talking about harvesting the eggs from foetuses, and we should stop and think about that for a minute. I urge all members of this House to think about that and to support this amendment.
135
19:06:00
Kelly, De-Anne, MP
FK6
Dawson
NATS
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
0
Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY
—I acknowledge the good intent of all of those who speak in this debate, however I do want to pick up on some arguments against this amendment. I thank the member for Bass for his thoughtfulness in finding an aspect of the original bill that has been overlooked and which, as we have discussed it further, has caused a good deal of disquiet in this House and beyond.
I want to go to the question of the Senate, which the member for Lalor has raised. We should not foreshadow what will occur in the Senate, nor should we allow members of the House of Representatives to work in less than good conscience, which I have no doubt they all do, by presupposing what the Senate might or might not do. Nor should we look on our Senate colleagues and suppose that, in addressing this amendment, they will not exercise good conscience.
There is no trickery here. We should give due respect to the members of the House of Representatives that they can deal with an amendment rightly without some alleged object in mind to do with the other house. We should also trust our Senate colleagues to deal in good conscience with what comes from the House. So I think those arguments should be set aside. This amendment has been brought in good faith and we must deal with it on its merits in good faith, without looking over our shoulder at what the Senate might or might not do, because they will in good conscience make their own decisions.
I want to make some points, which others have made, about this amendment. At present in Australia precursor cells are indeed used in biomedical research, but they have never been used to create a human embryo. In 2002 both houses of this good parliament voted to ensure that the practice of using precursor cells to create human embryos was prohibited under section 17 of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002.
Having dealt with the substance of the bill, we now find that hidden within the bill—and I do not say deliberately—is yet another significant change. We are not talking about tissue; we are talking about eggs. There is serious public disquiet about what is being proposed. The Minister for Defence used the term ‘morally repugnant’, although he in good conscience supports the present motivation of the bill, and I respect that. But it is morally repugnant. A female foetus who will herself die will become a mother to an embryo created also to die. Can I say that it is almost a form of intergenerational death. This is something that is greatly concerning to those in the public who have become aware of it in the short time for debate on this bill. Others have said ‘morally repugnant’. I agree: it is morally repugnant.
Can I go back for a moment to the slippery slide on which we now find ourselves. Professor Sherley, who is an expert in adult stem cells, has said that the asymmetrical division of adult stem cells does not extend to embryonic stem cells, and that the cures and the results being sought are almost impossible to achieve. Time will not allow me to go into the science behind that. Now we are being asked to take another very serious and morally repugnant step in the public’s eye to justify what so far has not been proved to be effective science in the laboratory on animals. (Time expired)
136
19:11:00
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
0
Mr ANDREWS
—I rise to support the amendment moved by the member for Bass. As I said in my second reading remarks, I oppose this bill because it has the effect of commodifying human life and, as my friend, the member for Lowe—who was on the committee which I chaired four years ago along with the member for Mitchell and others—found, the goalposts are moving all the time. The member for Lowe said that.
In the first place we were told all we needed was just four embryonic stem cell lines. That then moved. We are now in a situation where we have more than 100,000 embryos left over from IVF procedures in Australia in frozen storage. Under the law which currently exists and was passed by this parliament just four years ago, they are able to be used for research. There have been very few applications to use those embryos for research—and very few have been used for research—yet we are deciding today that we are going to allow embryos to be created over and above that 100,000 specifically for research.
The problem which is highlighted by this amendment is the basic flaw so far as the science is concerned, because this science will only work if there is a ready supply of eggs. The reality is that women, quite rightly, will not readily supply eggs given the health concerns and the ethical and moral objections that many have to that. Indeed, if you look at what has taken place in Great Britain, eggs will only be supplied by women where there is some commercial incentive to do so. That is the reality. So not only are we commodifying human life; we are then treating women as egg suppliers in a commercial sense. If that is not sufficient, then we have the proposition that you can obtain the reproductive material necessary for this science by looking to aborted female foetuses.
I say to honourable members who are listening to this debate: how many of you actually understood, before this amendment was proposed, that this legislation allowed this procedure to occur and allowed it to occur in a manner, which the Minister for Health and Ageing has pointed out, that is largely free of other regulatory processes? How many of you will go back to your constituents in your electorates and be able to honestly, frankly and sincerely stand up in front of those constituents and say to them: ‘I voted in full knowledge for a procedure which involved taking the reproductive cells from an aborted female foetus in order to create an embryo in order to carry out destructive research on an embryo’? Does anybody seriously suggest that this procedure has the support of the majority of the Australian people? I do not believe for one moment that this procedure has the support of the majority of the Australian people.
It was not that long ago that we had a debate in this place in which there were various views about questions of abortion. The one thing that came through strongly from that debate was that almost every member of this place said that there is too much abortion in Australia. We had various responses to that particular proposal, about which people came to their decision in various ways, but almost all said that there is too much of it. Yet, here we are, on the cusp of actually allowing aborted female foetuses to be farmed for their reproductive cells in order to create an embryo in order in turn to destroy that embryo. I simply do not believe that in any way the majority of Australians support this procedure, and I would urge honourable members to vote for the amendment.
137
19:16:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—I support the amendment, and I support the words of the member for Gwydir. I thought he covered the subject extremely well.
4K4
Anderson, John, MP
Mr Anderson
—It must be Christmas time!
009LP
Windsor, Antony, MP
Mr WINDSOR
—It must be Christmas time. If we are making decisions such as this based on the view of the proponents of the legislation that there may well be a change made in the Senate, I think it is a dreadful premise to base a decision on. I have not heard a logical argument to support not voting for this amendment. The Minister for Defence made some comments, but he essentially talked about tissue, not eggs. The member for Lalor has not put a convincing argument as to why this amendment should not be accepted. I do not support the legislation, and I will not support the legislation, but I would suggest to the proponents of the bill and those other members who are listening—and I take the member for Menzies’ comments on board—that a lot of people would not have realised that the legislation will allow these procedures to occur.
I think it is very important that those proponents of the legislation do not vote against this amendment just because they believe the original bill may well be threatened in the Senate. So I suggest to the proponents that, with the lack of logical argument against the amendment, they not call the division against this amendment. I did not support the legislation in the second reading, but I think this is a very important issue that we are making a decision on, and we will be judged by the people within our electorates. I am sure in all our electorates there are people who believe the bill is a positive thing and there are others who do not. I believe the majority of people in my electorate are not in favour of the legislation. I am sure in all our electorates they would not be in favour of legitimising a practice which is about the removal of ova—not the removal of tissue—for scientific research based on tissue. I am sure that there would be no electorate where a majority of people would agree with that practice. In conclusion, I urge all members to support the amendment, because if they do not it is something that they will have to live with in their own consciences for a very long time.
137
19:19:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
1
0
Mr CIOBO
—I am aware of the short time left, so I will keep my remarks relatively brief. I would like to touch on good law, bad law and political tactics. I would illustrate the differences in these by putting this proposition before the chamber: if the amendment that the member for Bass is currently putting before the House had been put and accepted in the Senate, how many of those who are supporting this bill here in the lower house would have moved to overturn it? If the member for Bass’s amendment to deny the opportunity to scientists to use the eggs of aborted foetuses had been accepted in the Senate—and I sincerely believe it would have been accepted had it been put—how many of those who will stand to vote against this amendment would have supported a move to allow access to these eggs of aborted foetuses in order to allow this science to go ahead?
What I am saying is: if the genuine motive is science then, fine, do not support the amendment. But to all of those who support this bill and would vote against this amendment on the basis of political tactics—because they do not want the arguments to stand on their merits back in the upper house—then be aware that you will be recognised as doing that as a political tactic rather than believing in the science that lies behind it. So I simply put that proposition to the House. Irrespective of whether you support or do not support the bill, you should recognise that allowing this is bad law. If it had been moved and passed in the Senate, which I suspect it would have been, I also suspect that there would be very few, if any, who would have moved an amendment in order to knock it out and to allow this legislation through.
138
19:21:00
Washer, Dr Mal, MP
84F
Moore
LP
1
0
Dr WASHER
—I would like to talk to the amendment. Basically, the argument boils down to the fact that foetal tissue has, as we know, been used since 1980. It has been under National Health and Medical Research Council control since October 1983. These are very strict controls. We have a very excellent minister who oversees the National Health and Medical Research Council. The council also has an ethics committee. The legislation coming from recommendations made by the Lockhart review, as expressed here, lifts the ban on the use of these primordial ovarian cells that can be used to make eggs. That would still come under the strict regulation of the National Health and Medical Research Council and of course has to have a proper ethical contribution in terms of donations from the parents of this aborted child.
When you talk about later term abortions—over, say, 12 to 14 weeks—there are many sad cases of spontaneous abortions. In other words, they are miscarriages; they are not surgically terminated pregnancies. When you get into this area of pregnancy stage, I hate abortion. I think I am on the record saying that. I am very genuine about that: I want to try to prevent it. I think, Michael, that you are pretty genuine, too. I apologise—it was a late-stage amendment and I was a bit suspicious, but, with good Christmas cheer, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
However, I want to express this: at the end of the day, a lot of late-stage abortions are done for very good maternal reasons. This element of abortion comes back in. It is yuck—of course it is yuck. No-one likes abortions. But it is sad. Women can get breast cancer and need a termination. Or say there is a foetal abnormality. There has to be a very good reason for this. Sometimes Mother Nature unfortunately intervenes and does it for you.
This amendment denies me—say I have that tragedy and am a parent of this foetus that has been aborted for whatever reason—and takes away my rights. That is what you are doing with this amendment. You can say that I can have all the tissues in this foetus used for any other purpose. The science is not there yet: we cannot yet make eggs suitable for nuclear transfer. But the future may bring this. This is why I would like to see this stay. This is why it is here. Why would you deny me the right? Take all my rellies and close friends. Say I had this tragic loss and I donated all my organs. What is the difference? I would make sure that whoever was left could take an organ from me. Terrific! They will keep me alive, even with brain death, and cut me open. My heart still pumps. It sounds yuck but it is great: I might help someone else. It sounds yuck, but I might help you, Michael—and I would like to do that.
What is the difference between foetal tissue and donating any tissue for retinal research or whatever? We could one day possibly save women the hyperstimulation to produce eggs if you or I or any of us had the right to say that science had moved forward—which it does and can do—and that you can create eggs from this tissue. We are not hurting anyone. The foetus is dead. We may help a lot of people. Why would you take away my right to do that?
Question put:
That the amendments (Mr Michael Ferguson’s) be agreed to.
19:29:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. IR Causley)
53
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andren, P.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Byrne, A.M.
Cadman, A.G.
Ciobo, S.M.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Emerson, C.A.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hayes, C.P.
Henry, S.
Howard, J.W.
Hull, K.E. *
Jull, D.F.
Katter, R.C.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Lloyd, J.E.
Markus, L.
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Murphy, J.P.
Neville, P.C.
O’Connor, G.M.
Pearce, C.J.
Price, L.R.S. *
Pyne, C.
Richardson, K.
Robb, A.
Rudd, K.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Truss, W.E.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Windsor, A.H.C.
76
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bailey, F.E.
Bevis, A.R.
Billson, B.F.
Bird, S.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cobb, J.K.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Georganas, S.
Georgiou, P.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Haase, B.W.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hoare, K.J.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Keenan, M.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Laming, A.
Lawrence, C.M.
Ley, S.P.
Livermore, K.F.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Macklin, J.L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Prosser, G.D.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thompson, C.P.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vamvakinou, M.
Washer, M.J.
Wilkie, K.
Wood, J.
Question negatived.
Third Reading
139
Dr WASHER
(Moore)
19:41:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
139
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
19:42:00
—I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Lockhart Review
140
140
19:42:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
0
Ms GILLARD
—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a very quick matter of indulgence, could we acknowledge in the chamber today Mrs Juliet Lockhart, who has been present for the debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill. Her late husband, Professor Lockhart, was the chair of the Lockhart review. Whatever view one has taken of this debate, I think we would all acknowledge that his work was done in good faith, with intensity and with integrity, and we should mark that moment. Could I also, on indulgence, acknowledge in the chamber the presence of Senator Kay Patterson, the proponent of the bill, and Senators Webber and Moore.
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
140
140
19:43:00
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
SE4
Mackellar
LP
1
0
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—I rise to speak briefly about the matter that was raised after question time today concerning the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services and the consideration of the report which has taken place over some weeks. I just want to put on the record that the chairman’s—that is, my—draft report was circulated to all members of the committee on Tuesday, 21 November and that there were then five consideration meetings: on Monday, 27 November, from 9.35 to 11.45 am; on Tuesday, 28 November, from 3.45 to 4.35 pm; on Tuesday, 28 November, from 8.11 to 9.33 pm; and on Thursday, 30 November, from 3.46 to 5.56 pm. Those meetings were attended by opposition members of the committee as well as government members, and we covered five-sevenths of the report on those occasions—five of the chapters were dealt with. The remaining two chapters were to be dealt with on Monday, 4 December. We met at about 9.10 am and we sat until 12.15. I realise that there was a vote going on for leadership for the opposition members, but I really did think they would come after the ballot had taken place.
There was also a very important reason for continuing with that meeting on 4 December, and that was that we had to deal with the very serious question of the leaking of the recommendations and material contained in the report. I stood in this place earlier this week and said that a journalist had called a staffer of mine and advised that he had been slipped a copy of the recommendations. I then sought advice of the Clerk. I spoke to the editor of the newspaper concerned and confirmed the advice in writing: that to publish would be in breach of the standing orders and that we would discuss that with the committee subsequently. It was an important thing to do, and it was also important to continue dealing with the report.
Because of the leaking of the material I was careful about the distribution of material. Nonetheless, when the report was finally compiled with all of the amendments and the work that we had done, it was sent by electronic mail to all members of the committee, both government and opposition. There was a further meeting today at 3 o’clock, when we dealt with minutes. But unfortunately the opposition members did not appear at that meeting. They probably had very good reasons for not being there, but in fact they were not with us at that meeting.
I think the committee worked very hard and very studiously until the matter of the leaking of the recommendations, which really did make life very difficult. The committee really did feel, I think, that when material is leaked you have to take precautions to make sure that more material is not leaked. I would like to place on the record that all members of the committee have worked hard. I think perhaps the spill motion and people wanting to compete for frontbench positions and support other folk got in the way. I have to be very strong and simply say that the work of the committee has been good and that the outcome is important. For the record, I wanted to put those details into the Hansard.
Triabunna: Commemorative Wall
141
141
19:47:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
0
0
Mr ADAMS
—I want to mention in the House that in November each year in my electorate of Lyons, in the township of Triabunna, the municipality there in the local area has a commemorative service for the seamen and fishermen who have been lost at sea. This was a local initiative by a local woman, Kath Ferguson, who has been a prominent member of that community for many years. For many years the community worked to put together a commemorative wall for people who have lost loved ones at sea—husbands, brothers or sisters—and children who have lost their parents or grandfathers. Tasmania being an island surrounded by the sea, with many fishers, of course from time to time we do lose people to the seas. Over the years we have also lost freighters and other ships.
This is a great opportunity for people to be able to place the name of their loved one on that wall. Then they have a place at which to have a memorial, where they can go at any time during the year to say g’day or to add a flower or whatever, as a family.
Each November the community has a wonderfully conducted service. The wall has now grown to resemble the shape of a ship with a great, lovely flagpole. The flagpole is to carry the different flags on the day. The three services of our Defence Force always commemorate it very well, and the Navy Reserve band comes along. The governor was there this year and made a speech which commended the operation of this wall and this commemoration. We also had a representative from the fishing industry, the chairman of our local fishing council, who also spoke of the industry, the dangers to his industry, how they try to avoid things and how safety has become paramount for that industry.
After we have that organised commemoration we walk down to the local wharf, where the local minister of the region blesses the fishing fleet for the year and a wreath is placed on the ocean to float out to sea. Many wonderful songs are sung, and remembrance is given. I commend Kath Ferguson and her very busy committee for all the work and effort they have made and that they make each year to make sure that this is a great occasion. I also commend the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council for its support to this wonderful commemoration. I recommend it to anybody that visits Tasmania. On the east coast in a little town called Triabunna you will see a fishing fleet, and if you walk along the foreshore you will see, not far from the council chambers, this wonderful commemoration of people who have lost their lives at sea over the years.
Ryan Electorate: Roads
141
141
19:51:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
1
0
Mr JOHNSON
—I am pleased to speak in the parliament today in relation to the so-called Goodna bypass project, which is of very deep interest to the constituents of the Ryan electorate, particularly the residents of the Moggill and Bellbowrie parts of the western suburbs of the Ryan electorate. I refer to the lead story on the front page of today’s Courier-Mail which talked about the cost of the Goodna bypass being double what was initially proposed. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is in the House today because I think it is important that the minister is aware of my concerns as the federal member for Ryan and is aware of the issues in the electorate.
I again want to put on the record for the benefit of Ryan constituents and particularly new residents in the Ryan electorate that my position remains unchanged in relation to the Goodna bypass project. My position is that I would support very strongly a project that involved two bridges crossing the river into the Ryan electorate. I would not support any proposal from the Commonwealth and the state steering committee that recommended more bridges than that. I do not think that is appropriate, I do not think it is feasible and I do not think it is in the interests of getting infrastructure constructed in Queensland that will make a very big difference. Of course, we know how lacking in financial support and commitment the Queensland Labor government has been in terms of infrastructure projects in Queensland. This is why the Commonwealth is heavily involved in this proposal.
I want to make it very clear to all the people of Ryan, particularly the new residents of Ryan—because every year many new people move into the Ryan electorate—that my position is unchanged. I am very disappointed that this story has taken on an enormous amount of deception in the media, which of course has affected many constituents. I did receive an email from constituents who now believe that my position has changed and that there is therefore some funny business going on within the government and state government in the steering committee. There is no funny business going on.
The Maunsell report into this project has not been released. Therefore, I am not in a position to advise my constituents of the final position. Suffice to say, I will remain unchanged in my position. I have been working very closely with my good friend and colleague the member for Blair, who must take a lot of credit—indeed all the credit—for ensuring that the Commonwealth pays a lot of attention to this. We do need infrastructure. Quite properly, the Commonwealth is investing significant amounts of money into the south-east corner and the western suburbs of Brisbane. And we are, of course, addressing the terrible traffic problems of the Ipswich Motorway. Quite frankly, the Queensland government’s suggestion that the Ipswich Motorway should be widened is just not feasible. At the moment, some 100,000 vehicles use it. By the time the widening of the motorway would be completed the traffic on that would have doubled, so really we would have had no net progress whatsoever. This is a very visionary project. This is a very important infrastructure project. The Commonwealth is committed to it.
As the member for the western suburbs, the member for Ryan, I express very strongly in the parliament to my constituents that my position remains unchanged. I went to the last election on that position and the people of Ryan indeed voted very strongly and increased my margin. Therefore, I had no hesitation in maintaining my position. This is a decision I am taking in the interests of not only Queensland but also that part of Brisbane. Any suggestion to the contrary by anybody—and I refer to certain contact from my constituents—has no basis to it whatsoever. This is a government that is very strongly committed to infrastructure projects and very strongly committed to making a difference in the traffic related issues of the western suburbs of Brisbane. I do of course encourage the Commonwealth government to come to a conclusion as soon as possible after the vacation. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
142
19:57:00
House adjourned at 7.57 pm
REQUEST FOR DETAILED INFORMATION
144
REQUESTS FOR DETAILED INFORMATION
Hansard
144
144
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
0
Mr Price
asked the Speaker, in writing, on 30 October 2006:
Further to my previous question relating to the absence of conservation of
Hansard
volumes (
Hansard
, 5 September 2006, page 68):
-
Are the Hansard volumes in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices in the various state capitals owned by the Parliament; if not who owns them; and
-
Why has no assessment been made of the condition of the older Hansard volumes owned by the Parliament and any need for conservation, and when will such an assessment be made.
143
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Hansard bound volumes are distributed to Commonwealth addressees, including some Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices. Once the bound volumes are distributed, they are considered to be the owners’ or custodians’ responsibility. The Department of Finance and Administration manages the Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices and is responsible for Hansard bound volumes in those offices. The Department of Finance and Administration has advised the Department of Parliamentary Services that they intend to discontinue the practice of receiving and displaying the Hansard bound volumes due to resource and storage constraints.
-
The Parliamentary Library keeps an archive set of Hansard volumes in good order by controlling access to the volumes, keeping two sets of the volumes (one is used for reference and photocopying purposes, the other maintained for archive purposes), and repairing any damaged volumes on an “as required” basis.
There are currently no plans to conduct conservation assessments of Hansard bound volumes held in the Parliament.
NOTICES
143
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
to present a bill for an act to regulate private health insurance, and for related purposes. (Private Health Insurance Bill 2006)
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
to present a bill for an act to provide for transitional matters, and make consequential amendments, relating to the enactment of the Private Health Insurance Act 2006, and for related purposes. (Private Health Insurance (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006)
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
to move:
That standing order 31 (Automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (Limit on business after 9.30pm) be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings.
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr Ruddock
to present a bill for an act to provide a regulatory framework for coordinating and conducting centralised criminal, security and other background checking, and for related purposes. (AusCheck Bill)
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr Ruddock
to present a bill for an act to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, and for related purposes. (Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2006)
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr Ruddock
to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to customs, and for related purposes. (Customs Legislation Amendment (Augmenting Offshore Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2006)
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr Ruddock
to present a bill for an act to amend legislation in relation to native title, and for related purposes. (Native Title Amendment Bill 2006)
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr Andrews
to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991, and for other purposes. (Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006)
XH4
McGauran, Peter, MP
Mr McGauran
to present a bill for an act to amend the Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993, and for related purposes. (Murray-Darling Basin Amendment Bill 2006)
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
to present a bill for an act to amend the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005, and for related purposes. (Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006)
9K6
Gambaro, Teresa, MP
Ms Gambaro
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed extension and accommodation upgrade to the existing Chancery of the Australian Embassy in Beijing, China.
9K6
Gambaro, Teresa, MP
Ms Gambaro
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Security upgrade and refurbishment of the Australian Chancery in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
9K6
Gambaro, Teresa, MP
Ms Gambaro
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed National Towers Program Stage 1 for Airservices Australia at Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne and Rockhampton airports.
9K6
Gambaro, Teresa, MP
Ms Gambaro
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Defence Force School of Signals redevelopment, Simpson Barracks, Watsonia, Vic.
06/12/2006
145Wednesday, 6 December 2006
—————
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) took the chair at 9.30 am.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
145
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Australian Safer Communities Award
145
145
09:30:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
0
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—I am delighted to have been advised by the federal Attorney-General that the collaborative effort between the Woorabinda Indigenous community, in my electorate, and the Queensland Ambulance Service to deliver first aid training in that community has been commended in the annual Australian Safer Communities Awards to be presented in Canberra today. The Australian Safer Communities Awards are organised by Emergency Management Australia, which is a division of the Attorney-General’s Department. These awards are conducted in conjunction with the states and recognise best practice and innovation by organisations and individuals that help build safer communities across Australia. The awards cover all aspects of community safety in the context of emergency management, risk assessment, research, education and training, information and knowledge management, prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.
In Canberra today for the award ceremony is Mr Christopher Clarke, the officer in charge of the Queensland Ambulance Service at Woorabinda. Mr Clarke will receive the award from the federal Attorney-General here in Parliament House. The award is presented to Mr Clarke in recognition of the work of his Queensland Ambulance Service team in Woorabinda. The Woorabinda Aboriginal community, of around 1,100 people, has achieved the great record of having one in four adults holding a senior first aid certificate. This achievement is the result of the work of Mr Clarke and his Ambulance Service team. The Woorabinda community is now in a strong position to deal with trauma until Ambulance Service personnel arrive. This is a truly fantastic example to other communities around Australia.
It is worth noting here that the Queensland Ambulance Service is involved in a number of other community projects in Woorabinda, including the very successful baby capsule hiring service, which it operates in conjunction with the Woorabinda childcare service. Anyone in Central Queensland knows that the residents of Woorabinda often have to travel long distances to access services or attend sporting events or visit family in Rockhampton and around the region. It is great to know that they and their little ones can travel in safety.
There is also the ongoing drug and volatile substance misuse program. This program is special because it involves the students from Woorabinda’s Wadja Wadja High School in the program’s production as well as its implementation. Students from the school actually design and produce the messages about the dangers of substance misuse that are distributed to the community as well as the schools in the area.
Mr Clarke and his Queensland ambulance team at Woorabinda deserve the recognition they are receiving today. It is recognition for their efforts in trying to make Woorabinda a safer place to live and for children to grow up. I join with the federal Attorney-General in congratulating this ambulance team.
Pacific Highway
146
146
09:33:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
1
0
Mr BALDWIN
—Today I rise in this House to raise the issue of the Pacific Highway. In the next couple of weeks the section between Karuah and Tea Gardens will be officially opened. Work will commence on the section between Tea Gardens and Bulahdelah next year by Abbey Group. But, as I have raised in this House before, there is an issue with the lack of initiative, direction and support by the Labor state government in New South Wales to build the flyover on the Myall Way turn-off. This week I received a letter from a Mr Turton of Hawks Nest. I will read it into the Hansard because it makes interesting reading. It was written to Eric Roozendaal, the state Minister for Roads. It reads:
We wish to register our concerns regarding the safety of the turn, off the Pacific Highway north of Karuah to Tea Gardens.
On the 29th November we travelled at night to Tea Gardens and when we approached the turn off mentioned, we were very confused as to where the actual turn off was, as the sign at the end of the lane redirected us to return to the Northbound single lane (which was itself a risk to us and any vehicle following us).
Even though there is a flashing yellow sign on the left, prior to the turn, the signage at the turn, is in between the North and South lanes set very high up and is not illuminated so as to give adequate visual notice of the turn. The confusion we encountered caused us to continue several kilometres north, until we could safely make a “U” turn back to the southbound exit.
Then, travelling again to Tea Gardens on the 3rd of December, towing a large trailer, we were aware of the difficulty of the turn, however as we had to wait in the crossover area for the heavy south bound traffic to clear before progressing, we had about seven cars and four wheel drives banked up behind us.
Should there have been a larger number of vehicles including caravans in the queue they would have blocked the north bound lane which is an extremely dangerous situation.
At Christmas, Easter and long weekends the “turning lane” traffic will be banked up and over flowing, well into the northbound lane, a situation any driver in the affected lane would dread.
There does not appear to have been adequate plans made for the amount of turning traffic during the peak periods mentioned and as residents of Hawks Nest, we are well aware of the population explosion at these times, more so it appears than the relevant planning authority.
Our hope is that there will be an overpass constructed before too long, as every time we use the now inadequate arrangement we feel we are putting our lives and others at risk.
If the communities of Tea Gardens and Hawks Nest can see there is a problem with this intersection which will expose people to serious safety risks in their motor vehicles, then I ask: why can’t the state government and the planning officials, who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in wages, understand that this is an issue? It is too late after a fatal accident occurs. The intersection is an absolute disgrace, a safety risk, and I condemn the state Labor government for planning and introducing it that way.
Overseas Development Assistance
146
146
09:36:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
0
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—Today I rise to speak about Australia’s aid contributions to developing countries—an issue which is very important to me, an issue which is certainly very important to many of my constituents, and an issue which we as a parliament must make a priority. Under Australia’s present leadership, we have fallen devastatingly and embarrassingly behind in our contributions to official development programs as a percentage of GNP. It is important that we as a parliament think about the hundreds of millions of people who live in extreme poverty around the world.
As a fortunate and wealthy nation, we have a responsibility to act. The UN recommends that Australia should contribute 0.7 per cent of GNP to official development assistance, but, under the Howard government, Australia pledges only 0.3 per cent. Australia is one of many nations which have pledged to contribute 0.7 per cent to official development assistance, but we are still a very long way from meeting this target.
Since it was first pledged 36 years ago, in a 1970 UN General Assembly resolution, the 0.7 per cent target has been affirmed in many international agreements, such as the March 2002 International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico and at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg later that year. The UN Millennium Project urges all developed countries to honour their commitment to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7 per cent. Australia is one of five developed countries that are yet to set a timetable for the 0.7 per cent target. I call on the government again today to set a timetable that allows for our achievement of this goal before 2015—the UN’s target date for the UN Millennium Development Goals.
Australia must work with developing countries to realise the millennium development goals. They allow developing and developed countries to move beyond the sometimes flawed relationship that has characterised aid in the past. The goals provide a clear vision and a framework for halving extreme poverty by 2015 and for ending it by 2025. I welcome the fact that the government has responded to community pressure and announced that it will increase Australia’s level of development assistance from the embarrassingly low levels to which it has fallen. However, the current proposals do not adequately address the issues that must be overcome in order to combat poverty in the south.
The Australian parliament needs to step up and honour its commitment to the UN, to its constituents and to those living in extreme poverty. This government is lacking strategic focus in its development assistance program. Combating poverty is not only the humane thing to do; it is also in Australia’s national interest. Reducing poverty means a more secure world. This government needs to be both alert and alarmed by the gravity of extreme poverty in our region in particular.
I call on the Australian parliament to step up the fight to end extreme poverty. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Make Poverty History campaign for its hard work in our community. (Time expired)
Cook Electorate: Surf-Lifesaving Programs
147
147
09:39:00
Baird, Bruce, MP
MP6
Cook
LP
1
0
Mr BAIRD
—I would like to update the House on recent developments to surf-lifesaving programs at Cronulla Beach, in my electorate of Cook. The people of Cronulla and the rest of the Sutherland shire were faced with a significant challenge after December last year to unite against violence and intolerance and to work together to send the message that our beaches are there for everybody. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Robb, has been a great support on this issue. I thank him for that.
Earlier this year a partnership was announced between DIMA, the Sutherland Shire Council and Surf Life Saving Australia. This partnership is called On the Same Wave. I was very pleased to launch the On the Same Wave program for this summer at Wanda surf club, only two weeks ago. I was joined there by Tom Zreika, President of the Lebanese Muslim Association, who is doing a fantastic job in that role. He has promoted the need for cohesion admirably. He is a great role model for young people of Muslim faith in south-western Sydney and indeed more broadly.
In a practical sense, On the Same Wave is enhancing the awareness of surf-lifesaving and beach safety in culturally diverse communities and allowing surf-lifesaving clubs to diversify their membership. At the recent launch of the summer program I observed students from Oatley Senior High School Georges River campus undertaking a surf survival certificate. This training has been successfully linked to the year 11 sport curriculum and goes towards fulfilling a part of these students’ vocational education and training. This month Granville Boys High School students from Islander and Arabic-speaking backgrounds are coming down to Cronulla for similar training.
During the school holiday period, Surf Life Saving New South Wales is working with Bankstown, Blacktown, Auburn and Hurstville councils and their youth services to make possible surf awareness days for young people who come from culturally diverse backgrounds. Further to these planned events, there will be two general surf awareness days in January for the general public, one in my electorate, at Elouera, and one at North Bondi. It is clear that all involved in this program are making great strides in breaking down cultural barriers in key areas of Sydney and building mutual respect and understanding on a wide level.
Thanks must go to Surf Life Saving New South Wales Diversity Manager Suzie Stollznow, who is doing a fantastic job of building this project from the ground up. It has been amazing to see the way in which she has just grabbed the program, sensed the vision and gone for it. My thanks also go to Vanessa Brown at Surf Life Saving New South Wales and the harmony officers at DIMA. I would also like to acknowledge New South Wales Police, who work very hard for our local community under very difficult circumstances. Finally, to the backbone of the enduring surf culture at Cronulla—that is, the four surf clubs and their presidents—I also extend my thanks. The community is sending a clear message this summer that our beaches are there for all of us to share.
Schools Funding
148
148
09:42:00
Sawford, Rod, MP
3J4
Port Adelaide
ALP
0
0
Mr SAWFORD
—When consideration is given to the allocation of resources to Australian schools, it might be expected that the allocation would be based on a sound educational rationale and fairness and would be in the national interest. How wrong that would be! The allocation is actually based on historical tradition and privilege. At least the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, acknowledges that the first part of that statement is true.
Recently I received a note from Leonie Trimper, President of the Australian Primary Principals Association. She correctly claims that under the Commonwealth’s funding arrangements government primary schools receive 8.9 per cent of estimated average government school recurrent costs, while government secondary schools receive 10 per cent. This approach contrasts with the funding of non-government schools, where there is no distinction whatsoever being made between primary and secondary schools in terms of their percentage of average government school recurrent costs. This funding for non-government schools ranges from 13.7 per cent to 70 per cent of these costs.
If this inconsistency were removed, an extra $101 million would be injected into government primary schools. Last year the average government school recurrent costs for government primary schools were $6,787 per student, compared to $8,994 for secondary students. Total federal funding for primary schools would therefore increase from the existing $263.9 million to $272.6 million if the percentage used were the same as the government’s secondary counterparts. This anomaly ought to be removed, because, basically, if you cannot get the foundation of education right you cannot get the end right either.
It is interesting that since my maiden speech nothing much has changed in almost 20 years. In that maiden speech I used an example of two Australian government schools, both with an enrolment of 430 kids. Just have a look at the comparison. In the secondary school you would have 170 per cent more staff, 34 to 20; 400 per cent more senior staff, eight to two; 225 per cent more ancillary staff; 500 per cent more base state government grant; 244 per cent more per capita state government grant; and 250 per cent more preparation time for teachers.
What goes on in the Christmas holidays with the kids in our country? What magic thing happens that in one circumstance you have that set of resources and then they increase dramatically over the Christmas vacation? Because that is what we do and that is why our education system, both public and private, is in big trouble. We do not give a solid foundation to the children of this country, whether they be in private or public schools. These comparisons apply to private schools as well. (Time expired)
Karen People
149
149
09:45:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
1
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I rise today to speak of the plight and the suffering of the Karen people in Burma, which they have endured for much of the last 50 years. They are peaceful people who have endured suffering, atrocity, murder and great difficulties within the military dictatorship of Burma. Many have lived in refugee camps for 10 years or more and, thankfully, many are now making Australia their home.
I raise this issue today to join those who have raised the matter before in this House and in other houses of parliament, in the United Kingdom and the US congress. I also raise it to pay tribute to a local church, the Croydon Hills Baptist Church in the electorate of Casey, which has done so much for so many of the Karen people in recent years, assisting them to make the Croydon community their local home in Australia. I particularly pay tribute to Gerry Riviere and all of the members of the Croydon Hills Baptist Church.
This week I will table a petition with 128 signatures from churchgoers asking that further efforts be made to assist the Karen people. Their story is one of tragedy but also one of hope. Jordan and Juni Pe, a Karen family who suffered greatly, came to this country under our refugee resettlement program. They have brought their immediate family out in recent years, 25 in all, and they have sponsored 30 other families out of their own pocket.
The Australian government recently announced some important funding for education and assistance and has also increased the quota of those able to come to Australia. The people of the Croydon Hills Baptist Church want to see that quota favourably reviewed and I support them wholeheartedly. I have had the privilege and the pleasure of going to the church and meeting some of these refugees from Burma, who are the most peaceful people you could meet and who have suffered so greatly over a long period of time.
Banking Sector: Offshore Employment
150
150
09:48:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
0
Ms BURKE
—Given the closeness to Christmas, I want to wish a merry Christmas to all, particularly to those in my electorate of Chisholm; I also hope that they are safe on the roads over this busy period. I also want to express my thanks to all the staff in the parliament, who do such a terrific job all the time and go unnoticed.
Today I want to use this opportunity to say, ‘Congratulations and well done,’ to my previous employer, the Finance Sector Union. The Finance Sector Union has run a fantastic campaign recently that has ensured that 485 jobs will remain in Australia. The Prime Minister has recently been going on a lot about exporting jobs if we sign the Kyoto protocol. He has made much of how we would be just sending jobs overseas. He has not mentioned outsourcing once in any of these discussions.
Outsourcing is an issue facing workers within the finance and IT industries in Australia in a very significant way. It is an area which faces many jobs being exported out of our country. But recently the Finance Sector Union had a victory over Westpac, which announced that it will not be sending jobs offshore. This has been a campaign run by the workers at Westpac and by the union. Mr Paul Schroder, the national secretary of the Finance Sector Union, said:
This is a victory for workers, communities and customers across Australia who stood up for workers rights and have saved jobs and sensitive data from being sent off shore.
Paul Schroeder said:
... Westpac should now reject the offshoring model of cutting wages and conditions in all its operations and reap the reputation benefits of investing in Australian jobs and skills.
“Westpac’s decision to invest in Australian jobs and protect the privacy of their customers will prove good for their business, their workers and their customers.
I say ‘hear, hear’ to that, because one of the issues that is involved in this issue of offshoring finance jobs, particularly within the area that Westpac was looking at and which others have explored, is the issue of customer privacy. It is not just the jobs that are going offshore; it is your personal data information. It is your bank account details, it is your MasterCard and Visa card details, and they are being sent off to countries whose privacy legislation is not as rigorous as ours.
A report by Deloittes suggests that we could typically see up to 500,000 jobs being exported from Australia, and being taken with them is your vital information, your privacy. What we know is that typically the receiving countries of jobs sent offshore do not have the privacy and data protection laws that exist in Australia. The impact is frightening. The data of 120,000 Visa and MasterCard holders was stolen from a United States based outsourcing company and misused. In India, we have now seen that you can buy people’s data and that this can be sold to the highest bidder, and individuals can then use this information.
There are two issues at stake here: Australian jobs and Australian skills. They should be kept here. We should be protecting them. We should be congratulating Westpac on this decision not to send these jobs offshore. I ask all others in the finance area to follow the lead of Westpac. (Time expired)
Inland Rail Link
150
150
09:51:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
1
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—I rise this morning to commend Everald Compton, who has had the great vision of building an inland rail link from Melbourne to Queensland and right through to Darwin. I commend him for his work and his persistence. It is a vision that I share. We have had great news this week. I should say that Everald has had great news and, obviously, as the member for Maranoa, I have had great news, because only this week the inland rail consortium have had a signed mandate with the Queensland state government which will allow the first stage of that great vision to be built—the railway line between Toowoomba and Gladstone.
This is an important rail link because it will mean that the Surat coal basin will now be able to be developed. In fact, the resources of the Surat coal basin are equal to, if not greater than, those of the Bowen coal basin, and we know what that means in terms of resource wealth for our country.
This railway line will source private finance. If there is a request to the federal government under AusLink for some financial support, I will be the first in the Prime Minister’s door to make sure that we support this proposal. What this railway line will do for the small communities along the Darling Downs—the Dalbys, the Chinchillas, the Mileses, the Wandoans and the Tarooms—is that it will provide the missing link between Wandoan and Theodore, and its effect will be quite astronomical. It will change the face of those communities.
We have seen a steady drift of population from the Darling Downs and the pastoral and regional communities of western Queensland over many years, mainly linked to the structural adjustment that has occurred in the agricultural sector over the last 50 years. So this is really great news. It will inject new life into the Darling Downs. It will change the face of the electorate in that part of Queensland, and it is something that is welcomed by all of us.
One of the important points is that there will be a massive injection of capital for the construction and upgrade of the railway line in this part of Queensland. It has to be up and running within five short years. So it will bring a lot of capital and a lot of new jobs into the community. It will also put enormous pressure on the Warrego Highway. With the recent construction of a baseload power station at Chinchilla, there were something like 11,000 heavy vehicles transporting the equipment, the steel and all the construction material required to build that power station. That figure will pale when you consider what will be required to build this railway line.
I commend Everald Compton and his group. I certainly support it. It is great news which has come out before Christmas, and it is great to think that the Queensland state government have signed that mandate with the inland rail group. (Time expired).
Employment
151
151
09:54:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
0
0
Mrs IRWIN
—While government members seem pleased to quote low unemployment rates in their electorates, in my electorate of Fowler the picture is not quite as rosy. Unemployment in Fowler has risen from five per cent a year ago to closer to 10 per cent. This has occurred at a time when the participation rate has dropped from 63 per cent to 57 per cent, which is eight per cent below the national average. You could say that this six per cent drop is in fact hidden unemployment and that the real level of unemployment in Fowler is actually over 15 per cent.
Fowler has been heavily reliant on the manufacturing industry for employment opportunities. At the 2001 census, over 20 per cent of the workforce in Fowler was employed in manufacturing. That was the highest rate in Australia. But employment in that sector is now in decline. Across Australia, 60,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared since the last election. Many of those jobs required a low- or semi-skilled workforce, and those workers who have lost jobs in manufacturing do not easily fit into the skilled vacancies available. The failure of this government to boost training in our workforce is now bearing the bitter fruit of a workforce without skills or without the skills required by employers. Brian Redican, an economist at Macquarie Bank, asks if the Fairfield-Liverpool area could be the canary in the coalmine. Other regions of Australia which rely on manufacturing may follow Fowler.
What we are seeing as a result of the trend to higher unemployment is greater financial stress on families. Last month’s rise in interest rates will be the last straw for many families. Most real estate agents’ windows now feature properties with the words ‘Forced sale’ shown on them. House prices have fallen in the Liverpool-Fairfield area over the past year, and the building industry is slowing. This decline in consumer sentiment is also beginning to affect retail sales in some areas.
In response to these trends, I joined with the member for Prospect in hosting an employment forum at Fairfield City Council last month. The forum identified the need for a regional approach to employment issues. While Western and south-western Sydney have well-established regional organisations, there is clearly a need for a focus on regional development. As we are seeing now with drought relief, rural regions are able to present their case for assistance and federal funding. The same applies with other assistance measures for other regions. All too often, Western Sydney gets lumped in with the whole of Sydney and is not regarded as having a separate identity and challenges. To succeed in a global economy, Western Sydney needs to act locally.
MRI Licences
152
152
09:57:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
1
0
Mrs GASH
—The old saying, ‘Good things come to those who wait,’ has never rung more true than in Gilmore recently. After a determined campaign by the general public, the radiology community and our office, the people of Nowra and the South Coast have a Medicare rebated MRI licence. Our thanks go to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, and his department for listening to the people of Gilmore and following through on a commitment the minister made during a visit to the Shoalhaven in October last year. The minister said then that the Shoalhaven deserved a Medicare rebated MRI service and that, when all conditions were right and the possibility of more licences arose, the Shoalhaven would be at the top of the list of recipients. In July this year the announcement came through: the people of Gilmore and the South Coast were to have their MRI rebated licence.
In the final chapter of the story, the MRI rebate licence has started operating in Nowra at Whistler Radiology. It should have been in a public hospital but, to my dismay, the state government—who constantly complains that the federal government does not do enough—could not get its act together. Just think of the opportunity lost to have an MRI licence in a public hospital operated by a private contractor. How good that would have been for our people in our community of Gilmore. As this service is in Nowra, the people of the Shoalhaven and South Coast will not be forced to travel to Wollongong, Sydney or Canberra to receive a Medicare rebated MRI scan. Obviously the rebate is available only to those with specialist referrals, but the announcement of the licence now operating out of Whistler Radiology is sensational news.
Gilmore and the South Coast boast a very large aged population and many veterans. This announcement of the MRI licence operating means that a significant slice of our community will not be forced to travel large distances for a service that is becoming more and more in demand. My congratulations go to Matthew Swain and his team at Whistler Radiology. Matthew and the Whistler team compiled all the necessary data and other information to justify the application of a Medicare rebated MRI licence in Nowra. I wholly echo Matthew’s words when he said recently, ‘This has been a very good, positive team effort.’ Alas, it should have gone into the public hospital in conjunction with the private operator. Whistler Radiology, the region’s other radiology providers and the community at large put the argument down in black and white. There is a large demand in the Shoalhaven and the South Coast for the service, and the allocation of the licence will now satisfy that demand.
The MRI licence debate raged within the Illawarra and the Shoalhaven for many years, but it is with great pleasure that we can now say the debate over how and when a licence will be delivered to Gilmore has now ended. As we all know, if you are referred to have an MRI scan, that sometimes brings with it bad news. Up to now, that bad news has been delivered to some and then quickly followed by a substantial bill. This rebate will now eliminate the burden of cost for many people referred for an MRI scan. It will allow them to concentrate on their health and not have to worry about the financial impact. The people of the Shoalhaven and the South Coast have had their voices heard, and the Medicare rebated MRI licence is now operating in Nowra. I for one could not be happier for all those who will benefit from the service and those who campaigned so successfully to see it delivered.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
ELECTORAL AND REFERENDUM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
153
BILLS
R2663
Second Reading
153
Debate resumed from 30 November, on motion by Mr Nairn:
That this bill be now read a second time.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—I call the honourable member for Hughes.
153
10:01:00
Griffin, Alan, MP
VU5
Bruce
ALP
0
0
Mr GRIFFIN
—I am the member for Bruce.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Bruce, sorry.
VU5
Griffin, Alan, MP
Mr GRIFFIN
—Mr Deputy Speaker, that I should stand here today and see you make a mistake! I guess it has been a busy week and a lot of things have happened that have had implications for the future of the nation, but I have to say that that is the one that has shocked me probably most of all!
I stand here today to make it clear that Labor supports the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. The bill contains measures arising from the government’s response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and matters related thereto. I was a member of that committee and, on the basis of the deliberations of that committee, am happy to support this bill.
This is the second tranche of changes that have been brought forward by the government with respect to the recommendations of that report. I am happy to support these particular amendments, but it would be remiss of me not to comment—and I will comment to a greater degree later—on the earlier legislation which related to that report and introduced some very regressive measures to alter the electoral system. Those measures were clearly introduced by the government to try and seek partisan political advantage. But I will talk more about that a little later on.
This bill contains amendments for the expansion of postal vote provisions for ADF and AFP personnel, revised arrangements for the delivery of postal voting material, an increase in the number of AEC officers that are eligible to receive postal vote envelopes, the introduction of trials for electronically assisted voting for the visually impaired, and remote electronic voting for ADF personnel deployed overseas. Additionally the bill proposes to repeal defamation provisions that carry criminal actions and penalties for defamation against electoral candidates. I would now like to talk about these measures in more detail.
The committee’s report recommended that the Commonwealth Electoral Act be amended to specifically permit ADF and AFP personnel serving overseas to become general postal voters. These people will automatically be sent ballot papers for each election without first having to lodge a postal vote application, giving them more time to return their postal vote.
The act currently provides that an application shall be regarded as not having been made if it reaches the relevant AEC officer after 6 pm on the day before polling day, a Friday. Item 6 repeals subsection 184(5) and substitutes a new subsection to provide that the deadline by which postal vote applications must be received in order to be processed is 6 pm on the Thursday—that is, two days before polling day. This amendment is intended to enhance the prospect of postal voters receiving postal voting material in time for completion on or before polling day.
The proposal also inserts a new subsection 184(6) to provide that, for postal voting applications received after this new deadline, the AEC is required to make reasonable efforts to contact those applicants to advise them that their applications have not met the deadline and of the need for them to vote by other means. This item gives effect to the government’s response to part of recommendation 9 of the JSCEM’s report.
The Electoral Act currently provides that an elector who casts a postal vote shall post or deliver the completed postal voting envelope on which the postal vote certificate is printed to the appropriate DRO. Where it is unlikely that the completed postal voting envelope would reach the appropriate DRO within 13 days after polling day, the Electoral Act currently allows for the envelope to be returned to other AEC officers. These other officers are any DRO and ARO outside Australia, a pre-poll voting officer or a polling place presiding officer.
To provide postal voters with greater flexibility and options for returning their postal voting material in time to be included in the scrutiny, this bill expands the range of AEC officers who can receive completed postal voting envelopes. Whilst engaging in their normal work, these officers will be able to receive postal voting envelopes where it is unlikely that the appropriate DRO will receive them within 13 days after polling day. The expanded range includes electoral visitors at hospitals and prisons, mobile polling team leaders and certain office holders and ongoing employees of the AEC’s capital city offices. This item gives effect to recommendation 9 of the committee’s report.
This bill will insert into the Electoral Act trials of electronic voting methods and consists of two divisions. Division 1 provides for a trial of electronically assisted voting for sight impaired people and division 2 provides for a trial of remote electronic voting for defence personnel serving outside Australia. The trial will be rolled out on Defence’s secure network and involves approximately 1,500 people. The government have indicated they may consider extending the trial, as recommended by the committee, but have made no commitments.
The proposed method will produce a printed record of the vote a person has cast. Once a person has cast an electronically assisted vote, the vote record will be placed in an envelope upon which a completed declaration has been made. While the vote record will not be capable of identifying the elector, consistent with the process adopted for pre-poll voting, information on the outside of the envelope will enable preliminary scrutiny to take place. To ensure the secrecy of the vote is maintained, the vote record produced at the pre-poll voting office will not be required to be an exact replication of the ballot paper; however, the vote record must be capable of producing a document, whether it be a replication of the ballot paper or otherwise, that accurately reflects the voter’s intention for scrutiny purposes.
I am a big supporter of this measure. Any measure that makes it easier for our brave fighting men and women to exercise their civic duty, while in operations, is to be duly welcomed. Depending on the results, this trial could lead to further reforms, and it is another example of new technologies helping to improve our system of democracy.
A continuing challenge for future Australian governments in this area will be how we make new technologies work for the administration of our democracy. Social, cultural and technological forces will always impact on how we administer and perceive our democracy. However, the impact of new technologies in this area has often been underanalysed, yet in the past they have had a great impact and will continue to do so in the future. One only has to look at the impact the printing press has had on the development of democracy.
It is new communication technologies that are having an impact, with the most noticeable being the internet. I welcome any technology that allows for greater participation and partnership of Australians in our great democratic project. While these reforms only implement a trial of electronic voting, the possibilities this holds for a number of areas are large. It is for these reasons that I look forward to the results of this trial and the possible reforms that may follow.
It is also proposed that alternative documentary evidence may be supplied by people enrolling from overseas under sections 94A and 95 of the Electoral Act. In order to assist people enrolling from overseas to meet the first tier requirement, it is proposed to provide these people with the option of supplying either their Australian passport number or their driver’s licence number as documentary evidence of their name.
There is also a provision that allows the AEC to establish a pre-poll voting office when, due to exceptional circumstances, it would not be possible to gazette the declaration prior to commencement of the operation of the pre-poll voting office. This provision will operate as an exception to the general requirement to gazette pre-poll voting offices. This will allow pre-poll voting offices to be established in circumstances where the AEC is required to quickly ensure that electors are able to cast votes. The AEC will still be required to publish a copy of the declaration in the gazette as soon as practical after the declaration has been made.
Section 350 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act makes it an offence for a person to make or publish any false and defamatory statement in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate. This bill will repeal this section. Following repeal of the section, cases of defamation will be dealt with in accordance with the civil law of defamation existing in the relevant state or territory jurisdiction. This will bring candidate defamation actions in line with existing laws and the move to uniform national defamation laws. This item gives effect to recommendation 46 of the committee report.
The vast majority of the measures in this bill are positive reforms that arise from that committee’s report. It is interesting to contrast, as I mentioned earlier, this legislation with earlier legislation that the government has moved as a response to that committee’s report. This legislation, although not dramatic, has some important basic reforms which are designed to enhance the operation of our system to provide people with a greater opportunity to be able to cast a vote. With electronic assistance voting, allowing Defence Force personnel to register as general postal voters, and providing different provisions in terms of who can receive postal votes after they have been filled in, this legislation will improve the operation of the democracy that we are all a part of. It will provide people with a greater capacity to enhance their involvement.
That is fantastic, but it is in direct contrast to the last bill in this area that this government moved in response to the committee’s recommendation. That bill produced a number of changes which in fact had exactly the opposite effect to the effect this legislation would have with respect to the operation of our democracy. At that time we had a situation where we had provisions around the earlier closure of the electoral roll. There is absolutely no doubt that closing the electoral roll early would produce an administrative nightmare, with people being incorrectly enrolled, and would lead to a large number of people excluded from being able to cast a valid vote—and that would actually impinge on the operation of our democracy. There is absolutely no doubt that, if the changes that were made had been implemented for the last election, up to 80,000 Australians might have been unable to enrol to vote and up to 280,000 people in total could have been affected by having a substantial fault in their enrolment. There is absolutely no doubt that the changes that were made then—in contrast to the changes that are being made now—would create real problems for the operation of our democracy.
On that issue—and this is germane to this particular legislation because it is about the operation of the electoral system through the Electoral Act—what we saw at that time was a situation where the AEC changed their position on these sorts of changes and changed the position that previous electoral commissioners had had over the last decade. When these sorts of proposals were put forward by this government on earlier occasions, the AEC rejected them. The AEC said that this was not a good idea for our democracy. The AEC said this would have exactly the impacts that the Labor Party and many independent experts had said it would have. The AEC criticised it and they did not recommend that it go forward. This particular Electoral Commissioner has changed that and has said that he can implement it and he believes it will be fine.
But what have we found since then about the operation of our electoral system? To me, one of the key indicators between elections is the maintenance of the electoral roll. What have we seen? Figures in the AEC annual report showed that, for the first time in nearly 10 years, the total enrolment under the Australian electoral system in fact went down. It has been years and years since that has occurred. When the commissioner was questioned about this at Senate estimates, he admitted that the AEC were seriously concerned about what that meant. They were seriously concerned about the maintenance of our electoral roll, which underpins the operation of our democratic system. It is the very basis by which we elect our governments, the very basis by which we have a system which we can have confidence in.
But the commissioner, in his wisdom—and I use the word loosely—came forward and changed his position and the position of the commission around the operation of these changes as proposed by the government, when at least three previous commissioners had said that they did not agree with it. He said, ‘If the government enacts it, we can implement it’—yet we have seen concrete evidence that there are real problems with the maintenance of the electoral roll under the current system. I for one have grave concerns about the quality of our electoral roll under these circumstances. I for one am genuinely concerned about how well the AEC will be able to administer the electoral roll, given the fact that there is clear evidence that their current systems appear to be having real problems.
I know there has been some increase since that time due to the fact that there have been some state elections, but nonetheless—even allowing for that particular aspect of the electoral cycle leading to a growth in enrolments—the fact of the matter is that there is clearly an issue there. When we already have an electoral roll where there are problems and we then close the roll early, the probability is that even greater problems will result.
The Electoral Commissioner has also said that he thinks that, with respect to issues like the administration of the roll, plenty of work could be done through advertising campaigns and that those advertising campaigns can be successful. Again, I point to the fact that it is pretty clear that what the AEC have been doing in recent years has not been working very effectively, because it is clear from their own figures that the roll is becoming a problem. Many experts, in considering the earlier changes made by the government, raised concerns about these issues. I will quote several of those experts. In response to the JSCEM inquiry into the 2004 election, Antony Green, the electoral commentator and expert from the ABC, said:
If suddenly the election is called two or three months early, people will not have regularised their enrolment. You will cut young people off, as the numbers show ...
Professor Brian Costar also made a number of points with respect to that issue. On the question of advertising campaigns and their likely success during the days in the lead-up to an election after an election has been called he said:
Let us remember that, at that period, lots of other noise is going to crowd out an election advertising campaign. Who is interested?
There is absolutely no doubt about the impact of the changes, so it is good that with this legislation we will see electronically assisted voting and some of those other changes regarding postal voting. The government is finally on this occasion, in some minor ways, actually going to try to encourage people to be part of the electoral system and to actually cast valid votes. But this is at odds with its performance just a few months ago and the changes made that are relevant in this case because they relate to the operation of the electoral system, which is what this act is about amending and, in those circumstances, are of real concern.
Other changes which have gone through and which have a direct impact on the operation of this system relate to issues like greater identity requirements for enrolment. As I mentioned, some of these changes were additional allowances made for identity provision for enrolment for people overseas, but there is no doubt that, with what the government now requires with respect to the general operation of enrolments under our system, it will make it harder for people to enrol and harder for people to be able to cast a valid vote. We can see that already in the context of the requirements for provisional voters to provide identification now on election day—all of this when the government has acknowledged, and ministers have repeatedly acknowledged, that there is not an issue with fraud within our Australian electoral system.
In terms of the changes made earlier this year, the provisions will make it harder to cast a vote, harder to enrol to vote and harder to ensure that that vote is actually counted, while at the same time massively increasing the capacity for donations to be made to political parties. As an interesting aside, after the coalition has been saying that it is really important that we make these changes, that the administrative issues here are very difficult for political parties and that it is only reasonable and fair to do it, we actually came across a letter from the Prime Minister to the Premier of New South Wales from several years ago where he talked about how he saw no reason to change the disclosure levels. On the proposal from the then Premier of New South Wales, who suggested there could be some changes to the disclosure regime, the response from the Prime Minister was, ‘No, there’s no problem.’ It was fine; but, all of a sudden, just a year or so later, the government of which he is the leader has come back around and said: ‘We can make changes and we will make changes. What we’ll do is make it a lot easier for people to make donations, for those donations to be secret and not disclosed publicly. We’ll remove transparency from the system so that people can have more concerns about what is actually going on behind the scenes.’
We talk about open, transparent and accountable government. If we look at what this government has done with respect to the issues in the electoral system, we see an example of how they have behaved in many areas. Frankly, we can draw correlations and lessons with things like AWB. Right across the board, when we look at the changes they have made in a range of areas, there has been a lack of proper administration and a lack of transparency—and certainly a capacity to allow allegations to be made because it cannot be established from the primary material what in fact has occurred. That is exactly what we have seen happen with respect to the operation of the electoral system.
I am pleased today to be able to welcome the changes in this legislation. I think they are a step forward. But they are a small step forward after a massive leap backwards, which occurred earlier on with the changes made by this government to the operation of our electoral system. We will have to wait to see how both these measures and the earlier measures actually work with respect to the next federal election.
I will make a prediction with respect to some of the changes that were made earlier on. There will be, in some respects and in some areas, real problems. There will be many Australians who are denied the capacity to exercise their rights within our democratic system as a result of those changes. There are already questions about how accurate the electoral roll is under the current AEC systems. They have acknowledged that they have serious concerns. These changes, in my view, will make things much harder.
That will create issues. It is designed to create issues, in my view. It has been designed right from the start. It was very clear from the speech of the former Special Minister of State to the Sydney Institute that he saw this issue as being a political response. He argued that it is a political response to an earlier political response by the Labor Party in terms of changes we made some 20 years ago. The bottom line is this: independent experts right across the board have come forth and said the system as it operated was designed to encourage participation, to encourage people to exercise their rights to be part of the political process, and that these changes introduced by this government in fact do the very reverse. In fact, that is what it was all about right from the start.
The government can be congratulated for these particular changes today because they do provide some minor but important improvements to the system and they actually are about improved access and ensuring that people get a better chance to be part of the system and to play their role. But the government ought to get a very big kick for what they did earlier on with respect to this legislation and the alterations to the act. What they did in that process was to make it harder for people to participate, harder to enrol, harder to vote, and they created a circumstance that is already allowing massive amounts of money to be hidden from public scrutiny. That is a blight on our democracy. It is unnecessary. It is unfair and it is unreasonable and, for that, the government should stand condemned. We recommend the passing of this legislation because it is a good step forward, small though it is.
159
10:21:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
1
0
Mr LINDSAY
—I welcome the support of the opposition for the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. In the spirit of solidarity, and of course in the spirit of the season, I stand with my opposition colleagues and friends on this legislation. This legislation is very important to people in my electorate. It is very important to the members of the Australian Defence Force. The member for Gilmore will also know the importance of it. Our Defence Force has been extraordinarily busy for the last 10 years. We go at a moment’s notice, because things occur around the world. Our ADF responds in Australia’s name, but we do not get notice of it. As an example, our people deployed to Fiji at the moment had very little notice. We do not know how long they will be there. If there were an election called, how would they participate in the democratic process? And so it is with having to go to Timor and the Solomons. When Australian troops last went to the Solomons, from the point that they got notice in Townsville to when they were on the ground in Honiara, on Guadalcanal, was 18 hours. A company of soldiers from Townsville responded as part of the ready deployment force, and that happened because an AFP officer had been involved in a nasty incident and Australia responded.
As the member for Bruce has said, this is about allowing people to participate in the democratic process and to have their right to vote. I well remember some years ago, when soldiers from Townsville were in Somalia, the fact that they did not vote caused a court challenge in the election of a candidate for the state seat of Mundingburra. It caused the election to be overturned. It caused the candidate who was successful in the first election to lose in the second round and in fact it caused the Labor government of Queensland at the time to fall. They are the kinds of implications there can be. That has happened in recent times, when members of the Australian Defence Force have not been able to exercise their right to vote. This legislation now allows a trial of electronic voting.
I say, as the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—and I note that the deputy chair, the member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Danby, is present—that we have certainly taken a very keen interest in electronic voting and how it is proceeding in the world. Some countries embrace it; others are very reticent to have anything to do with it. The ACT government has been trialling electronic voting, and quite successfully. The key problem seems to be that the electorate does not trust electronic voting. They think that it can be manipulated and that it can be subject to fraud. Particularly in the United States, this is a reason why it is not widely embraced. But the AEC, being the professional organisation that it is, thinks that it can conduct a trial whereby there will not be any question about the correctness of the vote, that it can be done on Defence secure systems so that it cannot be hacked into and that we will get the voters’ intended outcome. So I am very pleased, on behalf of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, to support this legislation.
I note that the other major component of this measure—that is, allowing a new arrangement for blind and visually impaired people—has been very well received within that community. They will be able to cast a secret ballot under this trial for the first time in a federal election. It will cost some money, but the Australian government has provided additional funding to the AEC, and that will allow the purchase of computer hardware and software related to the trial of electronically assisted voting for sight impaired people and for the trial of remote electronic voting by ADF personnel serving overseas. Incidentally, it will also be used for the delivery of postal voting material to postal vote applicants by means other than post, which is covered in this legislation.
I again welcome the opposition’s support of the legislation and join in supporting it myself and recommending it to the House.
160
10:27:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
0
Mr MELHAM
—I rise today to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, parts of which outline further arrangements to disenfranchise Australian voters. The Labor Party, as has been said, will support the bill because parts of the bill do provide that a few more people will be able to vote, and it does ensure that ADF personnel serving overseas and sight impaired people will be able to vote. Whilst it does have some deficiencies, which I will come to, on balance, the whole package, as has been said previously, does take us forward.
The bill deals with a number of matters which the government did not deal with in the earlier bill, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005. That bill has now been enacted, and we are beginning to experience the difficulties people are facing as they seek to enrol to vote.
Ever since I have been in this place—and I served for many years on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—I have always been about enfranchising people, not disenfranchising people. Every recommendation when we were in government—and the honourable member for Brisbane was on this committee as well and was a distinguished chair—was about enfranchising, not disenfranchising people.
We did not have a paranoia about the Electoral Act. Indeed, a number of legal cases—Snowdon v Dondas in particular—have basically put to bed the idea of the constitutional right to vote, which was never there for the territories; it was in terms of the original states. Basically the right to vote and the ability to vote are now contained in the Electoral Act, fair and square. Governments have, through cunning amendments to the Electoral Act, the capacity to disenfranchise voters—by the use of red tape, by closing the rolls early or by closing the time that postal votes are received early—and it can have quite a marked effect. The last big effect was, I think, the early close of rolls in 1983, which disenfranchised—
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
—380,000 people.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—I do not know what the problem is for the government in terms of the Electoral Act and their paranoia, because it has actually served them well. We have the best electoral system in the world. I am a great supporter of compulsory voting, and I have no problem with a government being booted out of office if the voters do not want them. But I do have a problem with Florida type provisions, like the hanging chad, being introduced into legislation—provisions which might not have an intention of disenfranchising voters but which, in the end, do disenfranchise voters. I had a strong view about the earlier bill in relation to the closure of the rolls.
OK6
Nairn, Gary, MP
Mr Nairn
—Talk about the bill.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—I am going to talk about the bill. What I am talking about, Minister, is the philosophy. The party that says, ‘We want to cut red tape,’ keeps introducing red tape, and it is going to result in people being disenfranchised on election night. I do not care how they vote, or how they want to vote; we should be about enfranchising not disenfranchising. The parts of this bill which are in relation to the trials, and other parts in relation to electronic voting, are to be welcomed. You were not here when I said earlier that parts of this bill are to be applauded because they do enfranchise.
The provision about voting for the visually impaired is to be welcomed. The pity is: it is in only 30 centres. It does not follow the recommendation of the standing committee that it should be in each electorate. I do not know whether that is a resource thing or not. But I know, for instance, when we did the two-candidate preferred vote when I was on the joint standing committee and it was recommended, there was a trial in part and then it was extended in a subsequent election.
What I would like to see eventually is that provision, if it proves successful, extended to every electorate in the country—not a random situation. So I applaud that, Minister, because it is about helping people who are disadvantaged and who have particular problems. We are there to assist them to get their vote and to get it right—unlike with previous amendments to the act where funding was cut and there were problems with Aboriginal education and other things, in the earlier days of this government. That has had some impacts. You would know, Minister, because of your involvement in the Northern Territory, how remote communities, Indigenous communities, need to be assisted. We made changes in relation to remote communities and made it easier for farmers in terms of postal votes and being on the registered list of postal voters. What true equality requires, Minister, is differential treatment for the disadvantaged—to make us all equal in terms of voting—and, in relation to young people, an acknowledgement that, whilst they might be a bit slack, you do not refuse to cut them any slack, which will disenfranchise them.
Giving Australian Defence Force personnel the ability to cast a vote electronically is a terrific idea. We should make those special provisions. I do not care how much they cost. We should not apologise for them. In my view, if someone is prepared to put the uniform on for this country then we should do everything we can, whatever the cost, to ensure that they get a vote in an election determining the government of this country. So I applaud the government for those particular provisions in relation to defence personnel. I know that there are some more details to come about how these things will be implemented, and I have confidence in the minister, who has vast experience in electoral matters. He knows the significance of changes to the Electoral Act and of the drafting of regulation and what it means. He was also a distinguished chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
I also want to talk about some provisions that are not in the bill but were in the Joint Standing Committee’s recommendations in relation to postal votes and privacy of postal votes. I want to use this opportunity to add something in terms of my own personal experience because, whilst it is not in the legislation, it is something that the committee recommended be looked at. Recommendation 13, as the minister knows, said that a return to double envelopes would not be required. I did get a lot of complaints about the frustrations of postal voters in terms of the period of time they were forced to wait for their voting forms, and I was surprised that the forms designed did not ensure that individual privacy was protected. They did not do that at all.
I do not accept the part of recommendation 13 that says, ‘Let us not have a double envelope,’ in terms of privacy. I will tell you why, Minister: I scrutineered in the federal seat of Parramatta, and I was quite happy with the result; but, in relation to the one envelope, inadvertent as it was, there was a situation in which privacy was not protected because of the way the envelope was cut open and the ballot paper was taken out. The name was exposed. It was not intentional, and I drew it to the attention of the returning officer and it was fixed. I know, because I was there and witnessed it. But the potential was there. It was not deliberate, but it was shown with that one envelope, in the way it was designed and the way that the ballot paper was taken out. It was taken out inadvertently face-up and not face-down, because they were being unfolded. That needs to be looked at, because privacy is an issue.
I have concerns, and I raise the issue with you now, Minister, because it is not contained in the package of legislation that is before us, but you are entitled to know of my experience in relation to it. I do not blame anyone for that. It was not intentional; it was unintentional. We need to look, when we look at these procedures, at not just intentional but unintentional things in relation to some of the people handling the processing of the ballot papers and things like that, because it is the process that can actually guarantee the integrity of the privacy and prevent a little thing like that.
I think there has been an increase in red-tape provisions, but I do not want to dwell on that. The proof will be in the pudding. I say this to the minister and to the government. You have the numbers in the House of Representatives and you have the numbers in the Senate. It will go through. I have a plea to you. You say you are doing this with honourable intentions. We will take you on face value in relation to that. If a problem arises, I am sure, Minister, if you are in charge, that you will genuinely look at fixing it. I am not trying to cry wolf or say the sky is falling in. What I want is the maintenance of what is one of the best electoral systems in the world, and red tape can make it very difficult.
It is like the Langer amendment. The provisions to overcome Mr Langer’s conduct disenfranchised many more voters than the provisions that were there previously. We used a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. We are sitting back and saying we are proud of the current system, but actually a lot more people are disenfranchised than were disenfranchised by what Langer did. I was not on the committee then, and I think that those provisions were put in genuinely by members of the committee, but that is a classic example. If you look at the figures—and I asked a number of questions in relation to this when I was on the committee—what we did actually disenfranchised a lot more voters than the earlier provisions did.
According to the explanatory memorandum, the deadline by which postal vote applications must be received in order to be processed is 6 pm on the Thursday—that is, two days before polling. I do not like that provision. I understand the problems of applications coming in in the last couple of days. I have been intimately involved in election scrutineering—and so have you, Minister—for the last 30 years. My concern with that provision is that it will mean fewer not more voters. It will divert the energies of the electoral officials in terms of what you are asking them to do in those last couple of days to overcome that earlier deadline. There are other provisions there, as you know, that say that they will attempt to make contact.
In terms of the problems that the provisions may bring about, the solution may well be worse than the current situation. I have asked you to have a look at that again genuinely after the election. I think this will create some problems. The truth is that there are limited resources and the last couple of days are days of frenetic and frenzied activity in electoral offices. I know and you know that pre poll has been relaxed over the years and more people are actually voting pre poll. Where we can, a lot of us encourage people who might have been postal voters to vote pre poll. But I do not like that provision because I think on balance it will mean more disenfranchisement.
I am quite proud of the Australian Electoral Commission as a result of all the experience I have had with them and their officers and their professionalism, when I was on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and from seeing the diligence with which they conduct elections. They are the best in terms of our democracy and our national system, properly resourced. My returning officer for the electorate of Banks, Doug Clarke, I think is one of the best in the business and has been on a number of occasions involved in elections overseas as a result of his expertise. There are many like him through the electoral process.
I know that on some of the issues in this bill the minister is well intentioned. With respect to the other bill, I think that certain people—not necessarily you, Minister—have had an obsession with wanting to go down a particular track. Quite frankly, I think that experienced hands like you, Minister, need to stand up to them.
In terms of the Electoral Act, I believe it is imperative that we as a parliament attempt at all times to achieve bipartisan support. I do not have any time for those party apparatchiks who want to bring in provisions that, in their view, might favour one side or the other and who are too smart by half. There are provisions—not in this legislation—that are like that. We are seeing in Iraq today people putting their lives on the line for democracy and the right to vote, which is precious, which should be encouraged, which should be protected and which should be preserved, irrespective of which way you are going to vote.
As I said earlier, with respect to the vulnerable in our community, the itinerants and others, I do not apologise for supporting special provisions in relation to them because of their special needs and problems, as long as we are sure that they are exercising their free will and that it is the particular person involved who is exercising the vote. As I said, there are some provisions here that I applaud because I think they are taking us into new areas of the Electoral Act for the right reasons—enfranchisement, not disenfranchisement. To me, that is what it is all about.
163
10:47:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—in reply—I thank the members who have contributed to this debate on the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, particularly the member for Banks, who was an eminent member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for some period of time. He served on that committee well before I was elected to this place in 1996 and he has provided great input over the years on electoral matters. I thank him for his kind words and also his vote of confidence that after the next election I might be the minister who will look at the matters. I will make a couple of comments on some of the issues that he raised.
As members have pointed out, some of these provisions have been extremely well received, particularly those providing the ability for visually impaired people, for the very first time, to be able to lodge a secret ballot at a federal election. That has not happened before. Such people have been voting for many decades but have never been able to cast a secret ballot. With the introduction of this trial, they will be able to do so.
I mentioned in introducing the bill in the House that I went to Melbourne a couple of weeks ago to observe the trial for visually impaired people being undertaken by the Victorian Electoral Commission. The one I visited was conducted at Vision Australia in Melbourne, and the feedback from blind and visually impaired people was very positive. This was their first experience of it. In fact, there was also anecdotal evidence that some people have never been on the roll because of the fact that they would not be able to cast a secret ballot. The fact that there was a trial encouraged them to enrol for the first time. That is all good because that is enfranchising people further, which is very positive.
The member for Banks raised the issue of the number of locations. It is technically quite difficult to put this in place, as is the resources aspect of it, so we believe that 30 was probably quite an extensive network of locations. It is not known exactly how many people would avail themselves of it. We have some idea of the numbers of people who are either blind or visually impaired who could use it, but it is not known how many will. We may get some idea of that when we have the final figures—which I have not received yet—for how many used it in the Victorian state election recently. But it was felt that because of the challenges involved in putting this together we should start with this sort of number, and 30 will ensure that we get reasonable coverage. We are working very closely with organisations like Vision Australia to ensure that the locations that we choose are known to people with that sort of disability so that we can maximise their use. If the trial proves to be very successful, we would be looking at expanding the number.
The other aspect of the electronic voting is with respect to Defence Force personnel overseas. As I indicated in my introduction speech to the bill, we estimated that something in the order of a third of Defence personnel who were deployed overseas missed out on voting in 2004. That is about 1,500 people; there are in the order of 4½ thousand Defence personnel deployed. There are two aspects within this bill that address that. There is not only the trial of electronic voting, which will be done on the Defence secure network. That in itself is not an easy task either, but I am very encouraged by the cooperation that we are getting from Defence—from the secretary of the department and the Chief of the Defence Force right through—to put that in place. But it does pose a few technical difficulties, which we are quite confident that we can solve. That is a significant number of personnel. That was the first thing we have done to address that problem.
The other aspect in this bill is automatic postal votes for people deployed overseas. That cuts out just one aspect of the mail going backwards and forwards; they will not have to make an application if they are listed as automatic postal voters while they are deployed overseas. They will have a choice under this bill to either vote as a postal voter, if they can get it all happening in time, or use electronic voting. I will be very keen to see this particular trial and, once again, if that is successful, we would be looking in subsequent elections to expand that to other personnel stationed outside of Australia. The obvious ones are places like the Antarctic, which was raised in the joint standing committee’s report.
I will be keeping an eye on the other matters that the member for Banks raised, and I am very happy to have a look at the aspects that he mentioned about increasing red tape and perhaps some of the Langer amendments. I am more than happy to have a look at that. I was the chair of the joint standing committee when the problem of Mr Langer first arose, so I am more than happy to have a look at that as well. If the changes that have taken place have caused greater concern than the original concern, I would be very pleased to look at that and also the aspect of privacy of envelopes. That is an issue that has been debated quite a bit—about how we can get all of that sort of thing right.
The 6 pm cut-off on the Thursday was something that was really pushed to me by the AEC because of some of the difficulties that they have in doing all those things in the last few days. The reason we have put this in is that we are concerned that quite a number of people miss out on voting because they think that they have made an application in time but the ballot paper does not come back in time, because they have left it too late, and they then do not make other arrangements. The provision within the bill is that, for any that are received after that 6 pm on the Thursday before polling day, the AEC—and the member for Banks acknowledged what a brilliant organisation they are and how well they work—will be doing all they possibly can to contact the people whose applications arrive after that date to try and work out a way in which they can have an alternative vote.
Those people can perhaps go to a pre poll on the Friday, if they have put in a postal vote application because they are not going to be there on the Saturday. Perhaps they can get to a pre poll on the Friday or at least make other arrangements for the Saturday. In discussions with the AEC there was concern that people just assumed that they were going to have it all done in time but ultimately missed out on voting as a result of the enrolment arriving too late for the AEC to process. The AEC needs time to get the ballot paper back to those people so that they can then post it and have it postmarked in time to be an eligible vote.
I think that covers the main provisions of this bill. There were aspects to do with defamation which are just legal things, but I do not need to go back through those because I detailed them in the introduction to my bill. I thank the members who have participated in the debate. I thank the opposition for their support of this bill as a non-controversial bill, therefore allowing it to go swiftly through the parliament. I should also comment that one of the other aspects of this bill was proof of identity and the change that we are making there to make a passport for people overseas to be the first tier. The member for Banks might also be interested to know that the AEC and my office have been working closely with the states to have the proof of identity regulations introduced.
The New South Wales Premier requested that we hold off the formulation of these regulations until after the New South Wales election, as he was concerned about new regulations starting at the time that people are thinking about making sure they are on the roll correctly, leading up to the New South Wales election. He was concerned about inconsistency between documents and things like that. Our original intention was to have the regulations in in January, but I have agreed to Morris Iemma’s request that we leave it till after the New South Wales elections. We are putting everything in place such that the regulations will come into force in April, which I think makes a lot of sense. We do not want to cause confusion for the New South Wales government. However, I hope that we have that full cooperation subsequent to the election so that the arrangements can be quickly put in place and all the necessary documentation and new forms be finalised well ahead of a federal election, which will be due, presumably, later next year.
I appreciate the cooperation that, hopefully, we will be getting from all the state governments in finalising that matter. We want to have a continuation of the one roll and the one type of form between the states. There is enough confusion for people as it is, unfortunately, between state and federal elections because of some states having optional preferential voting. It is a cause of a lot of informality of the vote because people think that at a federal election they can just vote 1, as they can in some of the state elections. There are other states that are still fully preferential. Let us try to keep everything else as consistent as we possibly can without causing further confusion. I am pleased to finalise the debate on this bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Order that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
LAW AND JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MARKING OF PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES) BILL 2006
166
BILLS
R2534
Second Reading
166
Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Ruddock:
That this bill be now read a second time.
166
11:00:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
0
Mr BEVIS
—The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Marking of Plastic Explosives) Bill 2006 seeks to give effect to the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, Montreal 1991. Importantly, the passing of this bill will enable Australia to accede to this convention. The marking of plastic explosives bill implements the obligations of the 1991 United Nations convention, which is the last of the 13 United Nations counter-terrorism conventions to which Australia is yet to be a party. In October 2004 the Howard government announced in its national security policy its intention to accede to the convention. As usual, the turnaround time between the Howard government saying they were going to fix a security problem and actually doing it has proven ridiculously slow and long. They seem to suffer from some permanent jet lag on security related legislation. However, this is a positive bill and the opposition was happy to facilitate its passage through the Main Committee so that it could be dealt with by the parliament before it rises, presumably at the end of this week.
The purpose of the marking of plastic explosives convention and this bill is to provide a means to improve the detection of explosives and to deter the misuse of explosives, by terrorists particularly, by requiring that more detection agent or odorant is incorporated into the manufacture of plastic explosives. The United Nations Security Council resolution 635 of 14 June 1989 and the United Nations General Assembly resolution 44/29 of 4 December 1989 urged the International Civil Aviation Organisation to intensify its work on devising an international regime for the marking of plastic or sheet explosives for the purpose of detection. This bill makes possible special machines or sniffer dogs to sense the odorant and make it easier to detect plastic explosives.
The danger with plastic explosives is that they are a very malleable product—easy to mould, for example, inside the lining of belts, shoes, bags and other devices. They are almost odourless. Typically, plastic explosives will not set off metal detectors and they are generally stable and resistant to temperature changes. That makes them a significant threat in the current environment.
This bill inserts a new subdivision B into division 72 of the Criminal Code and creates offences for trafficking in, manufacturing, possessing, importing or exporting unmarked plastic explosives. The bill gives the Australian manufacturers of explosives a total of 12 months in which to comply with the provisions of the bill. The bill has a six-month delayed commencement clause to allow Australian industry time to retool their manufacturing methods to comply with these new standards, and we think that is appropriate.
The convention and this bill arose as a consequence of the terrorist bombings on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland in December 1988. That attack killed 259 people on board that flight and 11 others on the ground. This, sadly, was not the first, nor has it been the last, incident in which plastic explosives have killed innocent people. Canada was one of the first countries to mark plastic explosives for the purpose of detection because of events in 1985. In 1985, two Air India 747 aircraft began flights from Canada. A plastic explosive device is suspected to have caused the crash of one flight in the Atlantic Ocean, south of the Republic of Ireland, killing everyone on board. A bomb in the luggage from the other flight detonated in the baggage-handling area of Narita airport, outside Tokyo in Japan.
In December 2001, passengers subdued a man on a flight from Paris to Miami in trying to stop him from igniting his shoe, which contained a bomb made from C4 plastic explosives. In the United States in 2003, undercover investigators for the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General sneaked weapons and explosives past security at 15 airports. This serves as a reminder that the legal means to combat plastic explosives must be accompanied by the political will to implement detection equipment or to train and deploy sniffer dogs or other similar devices.
In August 2004, Russian officials said they detected traces of the RDX high explosive in the wreckage of one of two crashed jetliners. RDX is a common explosive. When it is in a raw powder form and mixed with compounds to a consistency of putty, it effectively becomes a plastic explosive. RDX is second in strength to nitroglycerine amongst the common explosive substances. Clearly, it is a very dangerous material. As part of a counter-terrorism exercise in 2004, French police randomly planted a plastic explosive in a passenger’s suitcase at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris.
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
—Just to test them.
ET4
Bevis, Arch, MP
Mr BEVIS
—To test them, as I am reminded by my friend and colleague. Unfortunately, the police failed to monitor the bag on the conveyor belt and throughout the airport. It ended up rolling out into one of the 90 planes with an international destination and was lost in the luggage of an innocent passenger. It still remains missing. This was a gross mistake on the part of the French police but that error does serve to demonstrate the dangers that have to be fixed and addressed. Hopefully, this bill will go some way towards ensuring that, whether it is an exercise or the real thing, such an event could not occur again.
X-ray machines detect metal but they are not good at detecting plastic explosives. New technologies have emerged since 1991 so that many explosives, even those without the odorants added, can be detected. Such equipment must be properly installed, carefully maintained and expertly operated to successfully interdict plastic explosives.
Australia’s accession to this convention is desirable. It sets a good example for others to follow. Much of the world could not easily purchase and seamlessly implement the new technologies that are now available to detect plastic explosives. In any event, the sorts of examples I have just given indicate that further procedures are required. If this convention and this bill encourage countries to add odorants to their explosives and to train sniffer dogs to detect such odorants then the travelling public and the world at large will be a safer place.
We have seen too many security blunders at Australia’s airports under the current government. The September 11 2001 terrorist attacks put the Howard government on notice to fix aviation security dangers. The airport security review conducted by Sir John Wheeler again put the government on notice to fix these errors, although you would have to ask yourself why it was that, four years after September 11, we needed to have a British expert come here and write 150 pages about what we should have been doing in the four years in between.
In the last year or so we have seen baggage handlers going through passengers’ luggage and stealing a camel outfit and wearing it around at Australia’s largest airport. We have seen unauthorised public vehicles driving around in security areas at Sydney airport in a road rage incident. Labor has raised concerns on many occasions about the security at regional airports and most recently, this year, about security on flights from regional airports, in particular Dubbo, Ballina, Devonport and Burnie, to major cities. It was not that long ago that grenades were found on a flight that landed at Darwin airport. The government recently tried denying the famous ‘plank of wood’—the door-chock security located on the public side of a doorway at Sydney airport. All a terrorist needed to do was pick up the loose-fitting piece of timber on the public side of the sliding door and they would have been given immediate access to the runway. The government denied that for days until photo evidence was provided to prove the point. That is not good enough. The Howard government’s incompetence and arrogance in these matters has put lives at greater risk than should be the case.
This bill is a useful bill. It will assist law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who would use plastic explosives to disrupt the normal run of life and the freedom of citizens will find that much more difficult. I commend the bill to the House. What we now look forward to is a competent government enthusiastically, vigorously and effectively implementing it. I hope that we will have such a government after the next election.
168
11:11:00
Thompson, Cameron, MP
84C
Blair
LP
1
0
Mr CAMERON THOMPSON
—It is an honour to speak in this debate on the provisions in the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Marking of Plastic Explosives) Bill 2006 to mark plastic explosives for the purpose of their detection. This initiative on behalf of the government flows from a decision of the government to endorse the MARPLEX Convention, which is the last of the 13 United Nations counter-terrorism conventions to which Australia previously had not been a party.
The proposals for the marking of plastic explosives resulted from inquiries and the courtroom saga which followed the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103—the airliner the Maid of the Seas—with a bomb that was detonated in the aircraft above Scotland on 21 December, 1988. In that explosion, 243 passengers and 16 crew on board the aircraft were killed as a result of between 340 and 450 grams of plastic explosive being detonated in the forward cargo hold of the aircraft and triggering a sequence of events that led to its rapid destruction, with the aircraft falling on Lockerbie, Scotland. The consequences of that incident shook the world. In 2001, one of two Libyans accused of the bombing was found guilty.
It is understood that the bombing occurred when the plastic explosive was put inside a radio cassette recorder and loaded on board the plane. Even a small quantity of plastic explosive for this terrible purpose creates a very real danger. So it is a good thing that, in lining up with the UN counter-terrorism conventions, Australia’s government has come on board with something that will effectively make it much more difficult for terrorists to be able to use this type of material in such an evil way.
The process of identifying where the bomb came from in the case of the Lockerbie disaster was exhaustive. The court case with Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a married man with children, was a long and difficult process. There were 230 witnesses; there were 10,230-odd pages of transcript generated by that trial. But there is no doubt that all involved in that investigation, beginning on the day of the terrible crash, really did get to the very bottom of that incident, and in 2002 the appeal by Mr al-Megrahi was rejected, and rightly so.
I want to speak about the implementation of obligations under the UN convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purposes of detection. The convention is known as MARPLEX. Australia is one of 128 parties to the convention, which has been in force since June 1998. The coalition government made this an election commitment in 2004. The convention followed the Lockerbie bombing, and the bill will provide a scheme to detect plastic explosives and continue the work of this government against terrorism. We can learn from those horrific experiences of the past and put into place all we can to stop them from recurring.
The bill tackles the risk of legitimate plastic explosives being diverted to uses such as terrorism. Closer management of the stocks of plastic explosives will greatly decrease the opportunities for people wanting to engage in criminal activity. The acts changed under this bill include the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Customs Act 1901, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the Crimes Act 1914, the Foreign Evidence Act 1994, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. There will be new offences created under this bill of manufacturing, trafficking, possessing, importing or exporting unmarked plastic explosives.
People who traffic, import or export unmarked plastic explosives will face up to 10 years imprisonment under this legislation. An individual engaged in the process of manufacturing, as well as the person operating behind that individual such as an employer or a manager et cetera, would face two years imprisonment. The same penalty applies for a person in possession of unmarked plastic explosive. To assist our legitimate manufacturers there will be a six-month delay in the commencement of the bill and a six-month transition period, giving 12 months for manufacturers to comply with the provisions therein. The provisions of the bill will require that a marker be incorporated in the manufacture of plastic explosive. It will impose on state parties the obligation to control the possession and transfer of existing stocks of unmarked explosives.
The first marking requirement is that the plastic explosive contains a minimum concentration of one of the four markers and that the marker is distributed homogeneously throughout the explosive. Secondly, not less than 10 years should have elapsed since the manufacture of the explosive, as marking agents deteriorate over time. This marker ensures that they are used or destroyed by the end of their shelf life. As well as amending the Criminal Code, the bill also amends the Customs Act. This amendment provides our Customs officers with appropriate powers to search and seize in accordance with this legislation during their policing of our borders.
In dealing with this legislation, the government is taking a measured and effective response in line with authorities the world over. I think it is a mark of this government that we have acted to ensure that appropriate steps are taken without unduly inconveniencing or undermining people’s right to go on with their daily lives. It is an important part of dealing with terrorism that we do not throw away some of the basic freedoms of our country in seeking to defeat the terrorists, because in doing such a thing the terrorists would, of course, have won. This is a common-sense measure that will allow plastic explosives used for legitimate purposes in our country to be marked and therefore to be immediately identifiable and allow their manufacture and handling to be much more effectively policed.
The amendments to the Customs Act provide that the packaging of explosives will also be served by the bill, with packaging and legible information displayed on the packaging to be undertaken within 24 hours of manufacture. It must be enclosed in a wrapper with the clear upper-case lettering ‘PLASTIC EXPLOSIVE’ together with the date of manufacture, the name of the detection agent, that agent as a percentage of the mass and the type of plastic explosive. This is more stringent than the UN recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods, the current Australian standards or the Australian explosives code—all specify no more than a general identification as an explosive or demolition product.
There will be exemptions to allow the ADF or Federal Police to use unmarked plastic explosives for a seven-day period before requiring authorisation. The exemptions are: an exemption from marking of existing stocks for three years, an exemption for defence and police purposes for 15 years, and an exemption on explosives used for research purposes.
Since the process began way back in 1988 with the investigation into the initial explosion and the killing of the people at Lockerbie, there has been a very diligent process that has looked into all the possible ramifications. That has tied up the loose ends on that bombing and has done it, I think, very effectively. Its impact on our daily lives is apparent in legislation such as this. A similar process is still ongoing in relation to the September 11 bombings in 2001. It is interesting to note that by the time September 2001 came about, the bombing at Lockerbie had already resulted in the conviction of Mr Ali al-Megrahi.
The behaviour of terrorists and the ramifications of their behaviour need to be carefully examined by governments. There is no way that we can accept a trailing off in the response to terrorism, even over long periods when terrorism activity, at least within our sphere here in Australia, appears to have been on the wane.
We need to respond effectively and to maintain the vigilance that we have had over the period since September 2001, in particular, but also as a result of incidents such as this one. There are still ramifications of the Lockerbie bombing that may yet impinge and affect our prospects within Australia of being able to go about our daily lives in a peaceful manner. The prospect of such a small quantity of plastic explosives being sufficient to bring down an airliner still remains and, while marking explosives will provide assistance, it will not, at the end of the day, guarantee us any kind of ongoing protection from the use of plastic explosives in such a way. Sadly, there are also many other ways and many other manners in which terrorists can act to bring down aircraft, and the grim reality of that was revealed on 11 September 2001 and in other incidents.
Within Australia we are taking steps that provide greater security at our airports. We are taking steps that ensure that the monitoring of agricultural chemicals and other similar products that can be misused by terrorists is ongoing. We are being, I believe, entirely responsible in taking up those issues. The member opposite who spoke previously did raise a number of incidents and, while those incidents were obviously matters that he felt worthy of being raised, what is important is the way in which the government responds to those incidents. I think the response in every case has been appropriate and measured, and that reflects well on the authorities that are handling those issues. Even with frivolous issues, such as people acting inappropriately on airport tarmacs—for example, the incident where the person was driving around with a camel suit on—all of those things have ramifications for the way in which we manage our affairs. You will not stop people from misbehaving from time to time, but when those things do inform the debate, I think we can trust the authorities to respond effectively. Certainly, in those cases, it has been revealed that they have responded very well.
As I said earlier, there are exemptions affecting the ADF and the Federal Police. Research, however, covers the development and testing of new or modified explosives, development or testing of explosives detection equipment, training in explosives detection and forensic science. The government is undertaking this type of research in a manner that goes beyond the provisions of the convention, as does the authorisation for the ADF and AFP to destroy unmarked plastic explosives obtained in the course of overseas operation and the forfeiture and surrender of unmarked plastic explosives. It is the latest in a long line of counter-terrorism measures undertaken by this government and it will continue the comprehensive approach it has taken to cover any foreseeable risk areas. I commend the bill to the House.
171
11:29:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
0
Mr DANBY
—I rise to speak on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Marking of Plastic Explosives) Bill 2006. As the honourable member for Brisbane indicated earlier, the opposition will be supporting this bill, since its purpose is to give effect to the Montreal convention of 1991 on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection. We are, however, once again, highly critical of the government for the length of time it has taken to bring this relatively simple bill before this House.
It is only weeks since we debated the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006. I said then that it was a disgrace that such a vital national security bill was being brought in five years after September 11. At least with that bill, however, the government had the excuse that it was a complex bill which required extensive consultations with industry. There is no such excuse with this bill. Important though this bill is, it is a relatively simple one —but that does not make it any less urgent. In fact, the previous speaker, the member for Blair, referred to the fact that the events that prompted it were earlier than September 11—that is, the murder of the poor people who were on that Pan Am flight over Lockerbie by agents of the Libyan government using plastic explosives. If it has been relevant for that long, it ought to have been brought in earlier. Ever since that bombing in 1988 at Lockerbie, we have known of the dangers of plastic explosives. The Montreal convention dates from 1991, and the Howard government announced in October 2004 its intention to accede to the convention. The delay has been bad enough, but it is now two years since that undertaking was given.
I think the member for Brisbane outlined the reasons that we need to do this with plastic explosives—because of their malleable, valuable nature, because they are odourless and because of their ability to survive heat. These have all made them a favourite device for terrorists to use against airline traffic. We saw that with the mad shoe bomber who was arrested recently—a member of al-Qaeda who was based in England—who was trying to put plastic explosives in the sole of his shoes. He was not the only one.
There has been a consistent pattern with the government on these kinds of bills. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General talk tough on terrorism, but there is a dangerously wide gap between what they say and what they do. We have seen it in the maritime security legislation, and we have seen it with aviation security. We saw it last week with the money-laundering and terrorist-financing bill and now we see it again. What is the problem with the government’s security legislation? They cannot claim it is legislative obstruction, because we on this side of the House have supported all of the government’s antiterrorism bills, with amendments where necessary, just as we are doing in supporting this bill. In any case, since the government now control both houses, they can override any objections and push their bills through if they wish.
In my view, the problem is with the government itself. Despite its tough talk, national security is a part-time responsibility for this government. We have a part-time minister in charge of homeland security, the Attorney-General, who is responsible for a whole range of other things—from copyright, which he was in the parliament yesterday introducing, to family law. I am not denigrating the importance of those, but they do absorb a great amount of time of the Attorney-General. And, in my view, in these days, we need to have a full-time minister dealing with homeland security, just as they do in the United States. We also have a part-time Inspector of Transport Security—again, totally inadequate in these days when we are concerned with the ability of the Australian public to fly safely through any of our airports because of the international circumstances that rightly give people a reason to fear the kinds of problems that are being felt all over the world.
Labor believes that homeland security is a full-time, high-priority matter. In the honourable member for Brisbane, we have a full-time shadow minister for homeland security. I want to acknowledge, the day before our new frontbench is chosen, what an excellent job he has done in that portfolio. Thanks to his work, the days when the Howard government could claim some kind of political advantage over these issues are long over.
I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the honourable member for Brand, the former Leader of the Opposition, who through his 26-year career in this House in government and opposition has been an unswerving champion and advocate of Australian national security, both internationally and domestically. He was generally regarded as perhaps the best defence minister this country has had in the last 30 years. He was a trusted figure in Washington by both Republican and Democrat administrations.
I take this opportunity to say that, in my view, it is a great tragedy that Kim Beazley was denied the chance to be Prime Minister of Australia. He might not have made some of the strategic blunders in national security matters, which this bill is focused on, in the minor way that this government has. He would have appointed a full-time minister for homeland security. He would have created an Australian coastguard for the Royal Australian Navy for operational tasks where it is really needed rather than chasing fishing boats around the Timor Sea. However, I have known the new Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, for a long time. He is, in his own words, ‘a very determined bastard’. He will provide us with strong and clear-sighted leadership, and I congratulate him and his deputy, the honourable member for Lalor, on their elevation.
I know the new Leader of the Opposition’s views on national security, on issues like the matter considered in this bill and on foreign affairs. They are as strong as Kim Beazley’s. He is rock solid on the US-Australia alliance, while reserving the right of every trusted ally to disagree with particular administrations over particular issues. His experience and knowledge of international security matters as well as domestic security matters—including things as elevated as our relationship with China, our relationship with Indonesia, and the matters before the House today—are unparalleled on our side. I have every confidence that under our new leadership Labor will take to the next election a foreign policy and a national security policy which will meet the approval of the Australian people.
Returning to the matter before us: this bill provides a means to improve detection of explosives and deter the misuse of plastic explosives by terrorists by requiring more detection agent known as odorant to be incorporated in the manufacture of such explosives. It makes it an offence to manufacture, import, export, traffic in or possess plastic explosives which have not been marked with a detection agent such as described in the technical annex to the Montreal convention. The bill allows exemptions where the plastic explosives are manufactured or held in limited quantities for use in authorised research, development and testing of plastic explosives for forensic purposes and authorised training exercises, or when the explosives are destined to be incorporated in an authorised military use.
The bill also provides that existing stocks of unmarked plastic explosives may be used within three years from the date of the convention’s entry into force. That requires that unmarked plastic explosive manufactured and held for authorised defence purposes must be used, destroyed, marked or rendered permanently ineffective within 15 years of the date of the convention’s entry into force.
Labor supports the provisions of this bill, which bring Australia into conformity with the Montreal convention and with standards accepted by our major allies. To that extent, it helps strengthen our defences against the threat of terrorism, but we remain convinced that this government should be doing a great deal more to protect Australia against terrorism, particularly in the fields of aviation and maritime security, and that it should be doing these things much more quickly than it has managed so far. In this and so many other areas, Australia needs new leadership, new direction and new energy. Under a Rudd Labor government that is what we will get. Bring it on.
173
11:37:00
Hatton, Michael, MP
LN6
Blaxland
ALP
0
0
Mr HATTON
—I am happy to support the shadow minister and the other Labor members who have spoken to the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Marking of Plastic Explosives) Bill 2006. Indeed, I support the government members who have spoken to this bill, because we are in agreement that this bill should be supported in its entirety. Where we differ is on the question of lag and delay in implementation of not only this measure but a series of national security measures. This measure involves the marking of plastics explosives in a particular way—putting an odorant in them so that they are more readily able to be identified and therefore cannot be used for terrorism or other purposes. If there is an attempt to use them, we will be able to get them before it happens.
At the moment, it is a bit of a hit-and-miss proposition. There are specifically trained sniffer dogs, and I know how well those dogs are trained and how good their handlers are in the operation here around Parliament House. In order to secure this house, there is a full-time operation, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, involving not only the security guards that we see on bicycles but also a dedicated dog squad, with dogs that are trained to sniff out plastic explosives, bomb-making materials and so on. They are dedicated to that task. What is the probability that they will ever find anything? Probably about zero or just slightly above, but that does not mean that the resources do not have to be put there to secure this house.
If it would have been easier to give effect to the work that was being done by ensuring that the United Nations convention in relation to the marking of plastic explosives was adhered to by this government then it should have been done. This is the last of 13 United Nations conventions in relation to terrorism that the government has signed up to. You would have thought that by now we would have had enough time to look seriously at these matters and to say, given that it is now 2006 and not 2001, that there was every good cause for the government to take ready, steady and speedy action in matters such as this. But over a whole series of bills brought before this House, I am sorry to report, as I have previously had to argue in relation to maritime security, transport security and security matters at Kingsford Smith airport, that this government has been laggard in terms of taking up the challenge that has been provided to us directly since 2001, with the attacks on the Twin Towers, the attempted attack on the congress building or the White House—we are still not sure what would have happened with that plane in Pittsburgh—and the direct attack on the Pentagon. They represent the biggest instalment up to 2001.
It is not as if we did not have forewarning that there was a significant problem here, and forewarning that certain measures needed to be made—not only made but then undertaken—in order to secure civil populations as well as congressional buildings, parliamentary buildings, government offices and everything else that needs to be made safe on a national security basis.
We know what the recent history has been—and I will come to this shortly in terms of transport security and other related matters in regard to the use not only of plastic explosives but of others. We know about the increasing tempo of the dangers that we face. There were clear and present dangers evident to authorities world wide, but although the clear and present dangers were there, although the United Nations suggested, in putting their convention together, that constituent governments should sign and put into effect those conventions, here we are dealing with the very last of the 13 antiterror bills. You have to ask why.
Let us look at the history of this matter. In 1985 there was the still relatively unexplained destruction of two Air India aircraft originating out of Canada. It is thought that plastic explosives were the cause of those planes being blown up. It is thought there was a direct connection with the religious rivalry between Muslims and Hindus in India. We have seen a series of events since then which would give that supposition greater force and weight. In 1988, an aircraft was brought down over Lockerbie, Scotland. We know without a shadow of a doubt whatsoever that Muammar al-Gaddafi’s government in Libya conspired to bring down that aircraft and that they used plastic explosives to do it.
The plastic explosives were placed on the aircraft which exploded over Lockerbie. In good part, the reason that people did not know they were there was because they had no ready identifiers. Plastic or sheet explosives are used world wide. We know that they are produced in relatively large volume. We even know the designations of those plastic explosives. You would very well know, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase, coming from Kalgoorlie, the biggest electorate in Australia, covering most of Western Australia—and you and I both know, from serving on the industry and resources committee—just how significant the use of explosives is within the mining community. We know that primarily the explosive of choice is ammonium nitrate. We are not dealing with that here. But the bills that we dealt with recently in relation to transport security and maritime transport security go to the issue of how to protect yourself against ammonium nitrate. One thing that was not involved in those bills was the question of whether you should mark ammonium nitrate out and whether you could easily find it. Why? Because ammonium nitrate is used in great bulk in terms of utilisation as an explosive.
The great danger with plastic explosives lies in two areas. Firstly, you do not need much of C4 or Semtex to blast a hole in an aeroplane and bring it down. Secondly, because of the shape and form that it takes, there is not the difficulty that you have to have a whole truckload delivered. You need only a small amount. Also, it is entirely malleable. This is a plastic explosive and, like the plasticine that children play with, you can mould it into different shapes and you can conceal it. These days, with the development of technology for batteries, mobile phones, PDAs or portable computers, one of the reasons they go through the scanners is the fact that you need to physically look at what is there. But what if there are materials within those particular items? What if there are plastic explosives moulded into those spaces?
The new batteries that are coming through are being moulded throughout the cases of computers, PDAs and phones. They are more potent than lithium batteries and nickel metal hydride; they are more potent than the NiCad batteries that were there in the first place. You can get a great deal more battery by using this plastic-like approach. So why is this bill significant and important? Why should it have been signed up to before? Because of the volume of malleable plastic-like materials that are now entering into mainstream use. Because they are going to be used a lot more, you need to say, ‘Whack something in this to make it readily identifiable so that it will stick out and announce itself.’
There could have been—except it would probably have been self-defeating—an associated part of this convention. There is a good reason that it is not there. This basically talks about odorants or other signifiers to indicate that anyone looking for plastic explosives will be able to find them more readily. This convention was generated in about 1991. Certainly the Attorney-General will remember, I have no doubt, that we did not lose office until 1996. So if Labor was tardy and had just short of five years to sign up to this convention, let Labor be condemned. There were enough signifiers in the early nineties that we had a problem.
Apart from the activity on those aircraft, where else have we seen a significant rise in terrorist attacks, and certainly those related to al-Qaeda? We know that the attack on the USS Cole, directed by a fast motorboat filled with a large amount of explosives, was a direct attack. We know that the 1994 attack on the twin towers, where they attempted to blow them up from basement level, failed, but that was an indication that we had a problem with the worldwide terrorist movement. We know that that lead-up to 2001 had larger scale utilisation. We know that ammonium nitrate was used in Bali. We have also had a security problem with ammonium nitrate in Australia, where a train just pulled up, stayed there for half an hour or so and a couple of blokes came along and lifted a whole truckload full of the stuff and took it off. The expectation from the security authorities—and we hope it is borne out—is that it is just common criminals utilising it for their own purposes and not criminals who are associated with terrorist groups. But that is an indication of just how much we have to do to overprotect.
Plastic explosives were used originally—and they were largely C4 and Semtex—during the Warsaw Pact era. The majority of those were produced in Czechoslovakia. They were very effective. The very fact that you could hide them made them a weapon of choice for a series of reasons. If you look at the period post 2001, what is the one major attempt that we know of to use plastic explosives to bring down an aircraft? It was by a fellow called Reid, a British bomber, who was caught trying to light his shoelaces. They stopped him from trying to give effect to using plastic explosives in his shoes to take down that aircraft. If this measure had been signed up to by everyone and if the existing stocks of plastic explosives that we still have now—that are unmarked by the odorant; that do not have significations—had been used up fully, there would be less chance for someone like that to be able to get access to it. We know—the Attorney-General will know this, and others dealing with it will know this as well—there is still a capacity to ‘roll your own’ in this regard and for people to produce their own plastic explosives. And, if that capacity is there in the terrorist organisations, no doubt they will attempt to use it. But the key here is the large-scale access to a source of explosive that is not only potent but relatively small, easily malleable and easy to hide. This bill is about making that much easier to pick up.
If this convention had not been thought up in 1991 but was being thought up now, in 2006, or even back in 2004, the other thing you might think of—and this could in fact go directly against the particular uses of these explosives—would be: why shouldn’t we have RFID, radiofrequency identification, tags in them? They are very small. They have the ability to be put into just about anything: an item of clothing like my suit, a handkerchief—you name it. You can actually have RFID tags, which are being taken up by manufacturers worldwide, in order to track a logistical train of manufactured items around the world. Maybe that is something we should be looking at here.
Whether we have been laggard or not in signing up to this convention—and I would argue that the government has been laggard in signing up to this, the last of the 13 antiterror conventions—it is based on odorant protection. It is a form that was available then, but the dramatic advances in RFID technology would indicate that this is something else we should be looking at. We have a body of plastic explosives that is still there to be used, so there is still a chance that people could get ready access to that. But this should be about going forward and saying to manufacturers what they should be looking to produce under this set of laws. I trust that the Attorney-General, being as open as he is in these areas, will look at ways in which we can better improve our national security. We should have a look at the technical possibilities. This is a most dangerous substance because of all its properties. It is one that has not been used as much by terrorist organisations as we might have expected. It used to be the choice of certain intelligence organisations and certain terrorist movements overseas. It fundamentally has not been used by the ones we have been most concerned with recently, and that is al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah, but that does not mean they will not use it in the future.
So my recommendation would be that, while supporting the bill completely, we always need to look more broadly. We can secure ourselves in relation to the production of plastic explosives and making it easier to find them, but it would be a hell of a lot easier to find this stuff if we used a current technology that is extremely well developed and that is not totally standardised, where you have very small RFIDs which would enable you to track this stuff right around the world. You would be able to get, effectively, a tag in that plastic explosive to tell you exactly where and when it was manufactured, and you could then run that exploration throughout the course of its use. It would give us greater control and greater certainty. If the technology is available, let us look at being able to use it.
More broadly, our problems in maritime security, not only at our ports but on the high seas and as ships come into harbour, are fundamentally about the big stuff—ammonium nitrate and the potential for vessels that are not well enough controlled and regulated to come into our harbours where they could do a great deal of damage. I have spoken about that in relation to previous bills. With regard to transport security, I have spoken about Kingsford Smith airport with its myriad problems which are fundamentally historical; the embedded nature of the problematic way in which people do business, and hide criminality, within Kingsford Smith and other major airports; and the fact that getting those people out is not about identifying these sorts of things but, fundamentally, about getting a regime where you could put in a practised detective force. I think the New South Wales police force would be the best agency for this, to actually root out the difficulty and problem that we have with it. It is a massive job, but unless it is done we cannot be absolutely secure in terms of KSA.
The other great difficulty here, and one which could really be significant, is the issue of plastic explosives and their identification and use in attacks, particularly in our train networks. Sydney is highly vulnerable to terrorist attack on our train networks. We know how much damage was done in Madrid. We know how many people lost their lives there. We know how easy it was for them to bring Madrid to a standstill and for the shock waves of that to run around the world. If you look at Sydney’s geography—as the minister and I, coming from there, know very well—you see that Sydney is dependent on its railway lines running into the CBD. Those railway lines run west, they run south, they run north and they run east. The intersections between north and south in Sydney are very difficult. That is why we have used roads in particular to make those.
We have a fundamental problem. To bring down our train network, because of its very structure and the way it has developed historically, is not so difficult. This is an area that we really need to concentrate on and this is an area where the potential use of plastic explosives to create havoc on that train network is very significant. Why is that the case? It is pretty simple. It is the portability of them, that you could hide them relatively easily and that they could be the start point for using other sets of explosives to run off. We know from the London experience just how easy that is.
The last element is about these explosives being used in conjunction with others. Staying ahead of the game rather than being behind is extraordinarily important. We know from the recent changes in airline security that have had to be taken by the United States and the British governments that you can use very simple means: gels and other very simple things. You can put them together in a particular way and have an explosive that can do an enormous amount of damage, whether used in conjunction with plastic explosives or not. We have to be up to the game, fix this, put it through as fast as possible and implement it. Then we have to continue to take as many measures as we need to take to secure the public and our institutions against a very aggressive set of terrorists who understand the science and will put this into practice.
178
23:57:00
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr RUDDOCK
—I thank the members who have participated in this debate: the members for Brisbane, Blair, Melbourne Ports and, latterly, the member for Blaxland. I apologise that I have not been here to hear all of the comments but I do have some observations which I will make.
First, the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection is one of 13 international terrorism conventions and protocols which aim to strengthen the international legal framework to combat terrorism. Australia was one of the first countries to sign the new convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, which is yet to enter into force. The accession of the convention on the marking of plastic explosives, often referred to as the MARPLEX convention, will mean that we are a party to the remaining 12 international terrorism conventions currently in force and, I have to say, one of not too many countries that is party to as many conventions.
As one who plays a part in trying to get countries within this region to focus on the implementation of conventions and assist with the drafting of laws to ensure that they can do so, let me make it clear that we attach a great deal of importance to these matters. This particular convention arose from concerns about the use of plastic explosives in terrorist acts, particularly in the aviation environment. It aims to make plastic explosives even more detectable by requiring them to be marked and therefore inhibiting their improper and unlawful use. The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Marking of Plastic Explosives) Bill 2006 implements this marking requirement and imposes strict controls on the use, possession, manufacture, traffic in, import and export of plastic explosives which are not marked with a prescribed chemical marking agent. The unauthorised use of unmarked plastic explosives is punishable by 10 years imprisonment as an upper limit.
The bill provides for some important and reasonable exemptions to the requirement to mark plastic explosives. Existing Australian manufacturers of plastic explosives will be given 12 months to modify their processes to comply with the new obligations. Existing stocks of unmarked plastic explosives manufactured prior to the commencement of this bill may be used for up to a three-year period. The unmarked plastic explosives may be used for research purposes. In compliance with the convention, defence and police forces may use unmarked plastic explosives for up to 15 years from the commencement of the bill and there are exemptions to enable the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Federal Police to possess, import and traffic in unmarked plastic explosives in special operational circumstances where authorised. The bill was developed in consultation with the states’ and territories’ explosives industries. The passage of this bill will mean that we are one step closer to the accession to this important convention. The bill is consistent with the government’s ongoing commitment to countering global terrorism, particularly in the South-East Asia region.
In relation to the debate, I would like to make a number of salient points. First, there has been some criticism of the time that it has taken to accede to and implement this convention. That ought not to be of surprise, given the complex nature of it and that it did involve a number of government agencies that are able to use these materials and had to ensure that they were able to be compliant. That, inevitably, requires a good deal of discussion, negotiation and, ultimately, resourcing. The accession to this convention is something we have sought to deal with as quickly as possible. I was pleased that my colleague the member for Blair recognised that we were taking a balanced approach in relation to these measures. I think in my concluding remarks I have demonstrated that.
The member for Blaxland, who has now left the chamber, raised some issues in relation to other products. He may not be aware that I released a statement on this last week. We have already put in place arrangements to supervise the control, distribution and storage of ammonium nitrate. We are now moving to implement a wider range of possible measures and we have released a discussion paper. I noticed that he was a very thoughtful contributor, so he might like to look at that discussion paper and make some observations about the way forward. We want to do this in a way which involves all of those who are likely to be adversely affected as well as those who appreciate the importance of protecting the Australian community. The member for Werriwa might like to draw my remarks to his colleague’s attention. We also recognise that, in relation to some of the points he made of detail, the member for Blair is a thoughtful contributor, and we will look at the issues that he has raised about the marking of the components. I do not know whether that is technically possible, but it is an issue that we will give him a written reply on, as he has raised it.
But let me deal with the member for Melbourne Ports. I must say that I thought the Labor Party would be starting to shift ground on policy that is not terribly sensible. I am a bit surprised that the member for Melbourne Ports wants to be at the vanguard of advancing policy which has been, I think, very significantly discredited by the Labour Party in Britain and by the experience of the United States. He was running the line that I am in some way a part-time homeland security minister and that Labor’s policy was to have a full-time minister for homeland security.
I do not think he knows anything about part time and full time, but what I can say is that if you look at the position of the minister for home affairs in the United Kingdom, you see that they have a far wider range of activities in addition to homeland security—if you like to use that term—that they have to administer. I have been a minister for immigration and I can tell you that that involves a hell of a lot of work. But the minister for home affairs in the United Kingdom has to deal with security issues and immigration. So let me just make the point that, if you look around the world, you will find that there are a lot of interconnectivities in areas that often mean that these issues have to be dealt with by people who undertake other responsibilities.
The Attorney in Australia has always undertaken a supervisory role in relation to domestic security issues. We used to call it espionage. The issues are much the same: protecting the nation’s secrets. Those issues have not gone away. Are they suggesting that somebody else—somebody who does not fulfil the quasi-independent role that is expected of an Attorney-General—ought to do that? I think that would reduce the level of public confidence in the way these issues are dealt with at the present time.
Let me deal with this canard of a minister for homeland security giving you a better system. In the United States they wanted to deal with the problems of lack of interconnectivity of a lot of agencies that have to work together. We saw in relation to Hurricane Katrina that just creating another agency and giving it a name and saying it is an umbrella organisation does not necessarily work. I am not one who likes to criticise the United States—I think they recognised there were some lessons to be learnt from the way in which Katrina was dealt with—but Homeland Security has failed them dismally. What it has meant is that a lot of people are having to relearn their tasks.
The emphasis that we have put on dealing with security issues has been on ensuring that there is a high degree of interconnectivity. There is. That is the term that Dennis Richardson, the former head of ASIO, used to use to describe the way in which agencies in Australia worked. We have a situation where we are well practised. In other words, people know what their responsibilities are. In London, people were carrying out exercises on the day before the London bombings. Those exercises meant that people were not only well practised but knew each other and were able to work together. They came from different agencies. You do not need to have some overarching minister trying to draw everything together. You need to have people understanding what their roles are and practised in exercising those roles and in strategically thinking about how to deal with those sorts of emergencies if we face them.
Those who are continually pressing for some overarching homeland security department and a minister who has some overriding responsibilities ought to be able to substantiate where there are significant shortcomings in the way in which the security arrangements that we have put in place work in Australia. I have never heard it articulated. I have never heard any suggestions that there are shortcomings. I have heard no evidence. I think it is one of the ideas that they picked up from the United States—because they went down that route—that they ought to just quietly discard now that they have an opportunity to review the way in which they go about their quest for government.
Finally let me say—and this is for the member for Melbourne Ports—that, in my own experience, every time you change arrangements, change the way in which people report and establish new procedures and new protocols, that becomes the dominant objective: how do you reorganise yourself? It becomes inordinately time consuming. It becomes very technical trying to look at all of the requirements that you have to address. It takes your eye off the ball, and it means that the real effort you ought to be putting into protecting the community is lost while you are trying to reorganise yourself.
I am sorry that the member for Melbourne Ports was not here to hear my observations. I would hope that, rather than picking up what I think is rather outdated policy, he ought to focus on the real issues of how we can deal with risks that the Australian community face and how we are going to address shortcomings, not waste our time trying to reshuffle the deck and reorder and rethink the way in which we go about protecting the Australian community.
I commend this bill to the Main Committee. I am delighted that it is being supported by the opposition. It is an important measure to ensure that we are implementing our international obligations and, even more importantly, that we are in a better place to protect the Australian community.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
180
12:11:00
Main Committee adjourned at 12.11 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
181
Answers to Questions on Notice
Sea Rangers
181
181
3826
181
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 August 2006:
-
Are sea rangers from Aboriginal communities members of NORFORCE; if so, do they receive the same training and payment as other reservists.
-
Has the Government considered the potential for granting sea rangers the legal authority to board or apprehend foreign vessels; if not, why not.
-
Has the Government examined ways in which sea rangers can be given further responsibilities, in order to supplement or bolster the coastal security network; if so, what potential responsibilities have been considered.
181
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
A member of an Aboriginal community who is a sea ranger, can also be a member of NORFORCE. However, not all sea rangers are members of NORFORCE. All NORFORCE recruits complete Common Induction Training or a Regional Force Surveillance Unit Induction Course. Members of Surveillance Squadrons then attend the NORFORCE Basic Patrol Course. NORFORCE personnel are paid the same rates as other Reserve personnel.
-
The boarding and apprehension of vessels is a specialised law enforcement role that is conducted by trained Customs Officers and Defence personnel. The boarding of foreign fishing vessels (FFVs) is undertaken by officers who are equipped with personal defensive equipment and, in most instances, are supported by armed vessels. Officers are trained in the use of force and operate under strict rules. There is no current consideration of giving these powers to rangers.
-
On 19 October 2006, a meeting of officials representing the Commonwealth, Western Australian, Northern Territory and Queensland governments endorsed a 12-month pilot program focused on use of indigenous rangers to locate FFVs close to or onshore.
The concept for the trial was developed in April 2006, at the Commonwealth, State and Territory meeting on illegal fishing. At that time, the Australian Customs Service (Customs) and the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fishing were identified to assist with the development of the proposal.
Funding was provided in the May 2006 Budget to establish pilot programs in three communities, each identified by one of the relevant state/territory governments.
In addition to locating FFVs close to or onshore, rangers will monitor designated sites where previous foreign fishing activity has been noted and report to Customs on any indications of further activity. Customs and Fisheries officers may also seek assistance in accessing remote locations for other related tasks.
The patrols will assist the rapid response helicopter program currently being established.
In a separate but related initiative, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service received funding in the 2006-07 Budget to expand and continue its highly successful, longstanding program of engagement with indigenous communities to manage quarantine risks posed by FFVs.
Sexual Harassment Claims
182
182
4489 and 4491
182
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, how many sexual harassment claims have been reported in the Minister’s department and agencies.
182
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
DFAT
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is committed to eliminating sexual harassment from the workplace. In line with the ‘APS Values’ and ‘APS Code of Conduct’, the Department defines sexual harassment as an individual making “… an unwelcome or unsolicited act of a sexual nature that can be reasonably expected to make the recipient feel offended, humiliated or intimidated.” This approach provides for the resolution of instances of harassment within the workplace through seeking counselling, informal mediation, or the lodging of a formal complaint.
Four formal complaints of sexual harassment have been reported since 1 July 2000.
2000-01 - Nil
2001-02 - 1
2002-03 - 1
2003-04 – 1
2004-05 – Nil
2005-06 – Nil
2006-07 – 1
Australia Japan Foundation
Nil
Ausaid
Numbers of sexual harassment claims reported in AusAID for each financial year since 1 July 2000 are as follows:
2000-01 – 1
2001-02 – Nil
2002-03 – Nil
2003-04 – Nil
2004-05 – 1
2005-06 – Nil
2006-07 - Nil
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation
Nil.
Austrade
Austrade is committed to eliminating sexual harassment from the workplace. In line with the ‘APS Values’ and ‘APS Code of Conduct’, our policy defines harassment as “…behaviour that is not asked for and not wanted and that is reasonably likely to offend and humiliate others.” Our approach provides for the resolution of instances of harassment within the workplace, and at work related events, through seeking counselling, informal mediation, or the lodging of a formal complaint.
Two allegations of sexual harassment have been formally reported since 1 July 2000.
2000-01 - Nil
2001-02 - Nil
2002-03 - One
2003-04 - One
2004-05 - Nil
2005-06 - Nil
ACIAR
Nil.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
183
183
4804
183
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 16 October 2006:
Can he advise how many cases have been commenced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 since the High Court’s decision in Boral v. ACCC (2003) 77 ALJR 623; if not, why not.
183
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
No cases have been commenced under section 46 by the ACCC since the High Court’s decision in Boral v ACCC. However, as foreshadowed by the 2003 Review of the Competition Provisions of the Trade Practices Act (the Dawson Report) the High Court has delivered judgements since Boral v ACCC which have further clarified the operation of the section. These decision were NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority (2004) 219 CLR 90 and Rural Press Ltd v ACCC (2003) 216 CLR 53.
The ACCC is an independent statutory authority and the Government is not involved in its decisions on whether to commence cases under the Trade Practices Act.
People with Disabilities
183
183
4833
183
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
0
Mrs Elliot
asked the Minister for Workforce Participation, in writing, on 7 November 2006:
What additional funding, allowances or concessions, if any, are provided to the visually impaired to assist with the increased costs of transport that is a direct result of their disability; if no additional funding, allowances or concessions are provided, why not.
183
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
Minister for Workforce Participation
1
Dr Stone
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Mobility Allowance is available to assist people with disability receiving the Disability Support Pension (DSP), Youth Allowance (YA) and Newstart who are unable to use public transport without substantial assistance. It is paid to a person regardless of whether public transport is actually available. This means a person living in an area with limited, or no, public transport services can access the payment. Mobility Allowance is not intended to reimburse all transport costs. The payment recognises that people with disability can incur higher transport costs and provides a financial incentive to assist them to participate in the workforce.
There are now two levels of Mobility Allowance. The higher rate ($100 per fortnight), is paid to people on the DSP, Newstart or YA, who are working 15 hours or more a week for wages that are at or above the relevant minimum wage, or looking for such work under an agreement with an employment service provider.
People working fewer hours and/or doing voluntary work or training for at least 32 hours over a four-week period are eligible for the standard rate of Mobility Allowance ($71.40 a fortnight), if they are unable to use public transport without assistance. Mobility Allowance is free of income and assets tests.
The Pensioner Concession Card (PCC), issued to all DSP recipients, and also those Newstart and Youth Allowance recipients who can work part-time only, helps in meeting costs. State, territory and local governments offer reductions on public transport fares, rates, power bills and car registration to PCC holders.
Each state and territory government also has initiatives designed to assist people with disability to access transport and, as a result, their community. Initiatives include parking concessions, vehicle registration/driver licensing concessions and taxi fare concessions. The level of assistance and eligibility criteria vary across jurisdictions.
Australian Defence Force Personnel
184
184
4840
184
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
Mr Melham
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 30 October 2006:
-
Is he or his department aware of any efforts by private military or security companies to recruit serving or former Australian Defence Force personnel to provide security or other services in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.
-
Has the department issued any advice or guidance to Australian Defence Force members who may be approached by companies or persons seeking to recruit personnel to work as security or military contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere; if so when, and what advice or guidance has been issued.
184
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
The following provides guidance to Australian Defence Force (ADF) members on off‑duty and post-separation employment:
Defence Instruction (General) 25-2 – Employment and Voluntary Activities of ADF Members in Off-Duty Hours provides guidelines, restrictions and specific approving authorities for off-duty employment of ADF Members.
The Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 prohibits any person from entering a foreign country to engage in any hostile activity against the Government of that country. It also prohibits any person either in or outside Australia from taking any other action such as training or drilling personnel.
DEFGRAM 649/2005 of 29 November 2005 states that no ADF personnel are to undertake private travel to areas of warlike operations, or to any country for which Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has issued the two highest levels of travel warning.
The Secretary/Chief of the Defence Force Joint Directive No 6/2006 provides guidance on the potential for a conflict of interest when ADF members are considering post-separation employment.