Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Some members might have listened to my speech on this last night. In the course of my speech, I made several observations. Indeed, I referred to a paper that the member for Menzies alluded to only a few moments ago. It's a paper by some researchers at Newcastle University in England that was released only a year ago, which, again, raises serious concerns about this matter. In particular, I am guided by the submission from the Robinson Research Institute in Adelaide. I have visited that institute and I have spoken to the researchers there—not recently, but some time ago. It's a research institute that is associated with the University of Adelaide. It's a research institute that focuses on these very issues, and one that I have considerable confidence in, having visited their facilities and been taken through all of the work that they do.

I quoted a particular passage of their submission to the Senate committee inquiry, which I want to repeat for the benefit of those members who might not have listened to my speech. It says: 'In summary, our primary concerns with the currently proposed mitochondrial donation law reform are that: (1) it allows genome modification in human embryos; and (2) the possibility that children conceived in this manner could have developmental defects because the technology has not been tested and refined to a level appropriate for clinical use. We believe that it is essential to answer the above questions by conducting further research before mitochondrial donation be permitted for use to treat carriers of mitochondrial DNA disease.'

I believe that their concerns are ones based on some of the best researchers we have in this country. In particular, when they talk about developmental defects, that is a matter that concerns me. The technology has not been proven. Indeed, if it had been, I suspect that we would have had some reports coming out of the UK to confirm that. The fact that we haven't raises those concerns. My concerns are not based on ethical, religious reasons or otherwise. They are based on the research, and I've done a fair bit of reading on this, that points me in the direction that says that there are still untested and untried processes involved in all of this. For those reasons, I believe the amendments are quite reasonable and should be supported.

See this speech in context