Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fenner for his contribution. I think the overall tone of the debate on this very, very important matter has been very collegiate and very well thought out by all members in their contributions. Equally, as I reflect on this, I can't possibly imagine, and I have not met, a family who has been affected by the consequences of mitochondrial disease. Often when we speak on these things it is somewhat easy to speak on them when you know of people personally that have been impacted by various diseases or various issues that we discuss in this place on a daily basis. But I know what it is to see family members who have lost a loved one—albeit not at a young age, which is a common consequence for those suffering mitochondrial disease. We know these inherited genetic conditions significantly lower an individual's health and life expectancy, and, in many cases, can be fatal.

The consequence of parents losing a child at whatever age is devastating. This is where, for me, the ethical, moral and health questions that are raised by this bill are cause for serious reflection and consideration. I think the process the member for Fenner outlined, that he conducted in his electorate, is to be commended; I think that is extraordinarily well done by the member for Fenner. It is a terrific way of engaging with his local community. The question, I suppose, with any of these things is: is it going to solve the problem? We know from the science that there is no guarantee that this will solve the problem.

This, for me, is my concern with this particular process—particularly three out of the four processes that potentially involve the destruction of an embryo. I accept that, as we move forward and science continues to develop, and as scientific techniques and capabilities continue to grow over time, we will increasingly be faced with various ethical dilemmas—this being one of them. How do we treat the creation of an embryo that is then used to transfer the mitochondrial DNA from one embryo to another to prevent disease, yet at the same time destroy that donor embryo? I think that, for all of us, and certainly for me particularly, this is a difficult question to wrestle with. It is made more difficult by the recognition that since 2015, at least in the UK, these processes have been legalised. Yet there is very little, if any, information on the success or otherwise of these procedures. I understand that much of that is to protect the privacy of the families involved. From an ethical perspective, from my personal values and view, the MST process is probably the closest that I can come to being comfortable with this, in my consideration of this bill.

I understand that this bill seeks to introduce this process into Australia as a staged process, with clinical research and training over a period of time, to ensure that the process works, is effective and provides the results that are being sought. The risk of acquiring mitochondrial disease, as I have outlined already, can be devastating on the families involved. I am very conscious of that in my consideration of this bill. But I would seek to ensure that, in proceeding down a new path—only one country in the world has legalised this process to seek to help families, and we are without the information as to how that's going—we don't take risks that are unnecessary or deliver unintended consequences.

I have considered the information provided and I've considered the ethics and the morals of this very, very carefully. Other than, as I said, the MST process, I think it's fair to say, as a whole, I wouldn't support the bill in its current form. But I recognise fully the risks to the families involved and consider that very carefully in my consideration and deliberation on the outcome of this bill.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context