Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly I'll start by saying that I hold the Chief Opposition Whip in the highest of respect and regard. I think that his contribution to this debate needs to be understood in the way that it should be, which is that, without people like him who are willing to force people like me to justify our position, it is not possible that this parliament can get things right. I agree with much of what he had to say—that an embryo must be treated with the same respect that a life is because that is what it becomes. He and I share similar cultural backgrounds and traditions in which we were brought up. Although I do not have a member of my family who went so far as to join the priesthood, we do our best under the circumstances.

I am going to vote in favour of this bill, the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. I appreciate what the Chief Opposition Whip has said and I agree with his concerns. But the reason I came down in favour of the bill is that, if there is meant to be one purpose of this parliament, in my view, it is to maximise the freedom of individuals wholly consistent with the freedom of others. There can be no greater freedom to grant to any particular person, family or community than the gift of life. At the moment, one in 200 Australians are predisposed to mitochondrial disease. It is an extraordinarily debilitating and awful disease. I cannot describe it because I fear I will become somewhat emotional. However, I have met children who are suffering from mitochondrial disease and their families. If it is possible for us to make sure that that suffering no longer needs to exist—this will not go towards a cure; it will go towards eliminating the possibility that a person will develop this disease—then I believe the parliament must take the step, with all due caution and all due consideration and with the possibility, if it does not work, of reversing course. If we are to fail, we should fail fast.

I think that this law, on its face, achieves what this parliament should do, which is to maximise the freedom of individuals wholly consistent with others. I do take some comfort in the knowledge that a law very similar to this has existed in the United Kingdom for about six years. The experience of that law in the United Kingdom has been a positive one. It has certainly been one that ethicists have observed and looked at very closely. To date, it has not resulted in the conflicts that many, including me, fear may result. But it has resulted in the fact that many people have been saved from the pain, misery and sheer awfulness of this disease. On that basis, I will add my voice in favour of the bill.

In summary, though, I would like to thank two people who I think have helped me understand the processes involved in the science of ensuring that we, as a parliament, can safely allow these donations to occur and also on top of that to ensure that there are many people who will benefit from it. They are Dr Doug Lingard and Professor Carolyn Sue, who have spent many hours educating me patiently but also informatively in what this bill will mean both scientifically and at a human level for so many ordinary Australians and their families. I thank the parliament for the time it has afforded me to make these comments.

See this speech in context