Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I commend the government on the amendments it's bringing forward this afternoon to the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. As many members will know, including the few that were in the House at about 9 o'clock last night when I spoke on the second reading speech, I have serious reservations about four areas of this bill. Two of those areas of reservation are now being addressed by the amendments which the government is bringing forward. In particular, government amendment (15), which relates to reporting, puts in place a proper system of reporting, which was absent in the original bill. I will not be proceeding with my amendment to enhance reporting because that's being done by what the government has brought forward in these amendments.

More significantly, government amendment (17), which goes to the issue of sex selection, was the reverse in the bill. Indeed, section 28Q of the bill originally before the parliament provided that sex selection could occur under the techniques provided for in this bill. That, I believe, for many people, is a novel step too far. It's unnecessary for the operation of these techniques if they are proven to be safe and efficacious in the future. That was why I was proposing an amendment that would have banned, or removed from the bill, the ability to actually sex select.

As the government has now brought forward this amendment, which will have the same effect as the one I have circulated to honourable members, I indicate to members in the chamber that I will not be proceeding with that particular amendment. Once again, I commend the government on doing so in relation to both this and to much more adequate record keeping and reporting to the parliament on what's proposed to happen under this research.

Question agreed to.

I move to the other two areas of reservation which have not been covered in the government's amendments to the bill. I move my amendment (2):

(2) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 36), after item 10, insert:

10A At the end of Division 1 of Part 2

Add:

9A Minimum data required before clinical practice stage

Before the Governor-General makes regulations declaring a mitochondrial donation technique for the purposes of the definition of permitted technique in section 8, the Minister must be satisfied that there is sufficient clinical evidence that the technique has been used on 5 trial participants.

I will come to the others as a batch if I have leave of the House. What amendment (2) does is very simple. It inserts a further basic safeguard into the bill, namely that before the clinical practice stage—that is, the stage when these techniques would be used in general clinical practice applicable to those who might qualify after the research is undertaken—the minister must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that the technique has been used on five trial participants. Now, this is a very small number of participants in a trial in order to then move to the next stage. The amendment doesn't prescribe how the minister must be satisfied. It simply provides further assurance that a small number of trials, namely five, have been undertaken.

Many might argue that five is an insufficient number—'Why shouldn't it be 10, 15, 20 or an even greater number than that?' But I believe that this would add some further assurance that the minister is satisfied, without prescribing how the minister has to be satisfied, that there have been five trials undertaken and that it's okay to move to the clinical-use stage. It provides more assurance about the efficacy and the safeties of the procedures and techniques being utilised. I can't understand why anyone would not vote in favour of putting this safeguard in place. It doesn't do anything to stop the trials continuing. It simply provides a further assurance to the parliament through the minister that, indeed, this is something which has been achieved.

I put that in the context that this research has been undertaken in the UK for some five to six years now. One of the published papers from last year from the scientists involved, who are proponents of the research, was still talking about this being research that may have potential in the future. This is after five or six years of research. It said that questions about the safety and efficacy of the research are still to be determined in terms of their research program they're undertaking. In the context of that, I think this is a small, further assurance so that the parliament and, through this parliament, the people of Australia can be assured that, if this step is taken to go to general clinical application of these techniques sometime in the future, the minister is satisfied.

I could labour the point over point over and over again, but a Federal Court judge once told me that repeating my argument didn't help it, so I will sit down on that note!

See this speech in context