Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021, known as Maeve's law. Before I outline to the Senate my thoughts on this bill, and I indicate here that I will be opposing this bill on moral grounds, I think it's worth reflecting on the mature and sober manner in which this debate has been conducted not just here—and that was a terrific contribution by my colleague Senator Raff Ciccone—but also over in the House of Representatives. A conscience vote has been exercised by both parties for the consideration and amendment of this bill, and so it should have been. It is good that this is happening. While the debates and shenanigans in parliament can border on or even enter into the pantomime, Australians should rest assured that when it comes down to it, although democracy can be messy, it is of course the best form of government and it gets things done. Reading and listening to speeches on both sides of this debate has been very insightful. We've seen the unique position where there are some on the other side agreeing with others on this side and vice versa. It's great to see this happen. You can't always say that about political speeches. They don't always bring the very best out in this sort of occupation, but this bill is different.

As I stated before, I will be opposing this bill. While I appreciate its intention and honour those that have lobbied for it, this bill presents some serious moral issues to me, and I do not believe that the appropriate safeguards are there and have been enacted to prevent the worst excesses of this science. I do, however, note and endorse the amendment that was passed in the House of Representatives preventing sex elective procedures. This is a good and vital amendment.

At this time I'll pause to acknowledge the many people that have reached out to me, particularly those from the Mito Foundation, family members and friends and communities that have been touched by this disease. I can't imagine what it's like to get the news that your child has inherited this gene and is suffering from this disease. As a parent, obviously you want the best for your children. To get that sort of news must be absolutely heartbreaking, and I know you'd do everything you can for your children. For potential parents finding out they're carriers of the gene, there may be trauma and difficulty in hearing a speech like this, when all you want to do is to be able to have a child of your own. I acknowledge that and accept that. My position on this bill might not be the kind of support that you would love to have had. I do respect that and appreciate that.

I would like to pay tribute to the member for Menzies, the Hon. Kevin Andrews. Sadly, he's going to be leaving parliament at the end of this term, but he's left a wonderful legacy. One of the things that he did recently in the other place was contribute a number of amendments that I think, had they passed, would have made a significant contribution to this bill and made it a much more balanced, acceptable bill. If we had amendments such as those—and I believe that similar amendments might have been foreshadowed to come into this place—I would certainly be considering them and more than likely passing them, if they were in the same form as many of those amendments in the House of Representatives.

That being said, the fundamental biological truth of two parents coming together to create a child is not one that I could vote to alter. Comparisons to organ donation are disingenuous, as it does not result in DNA being passed on. Speaking in the other place, the member for New England, the Deputy Prime Minister, put it well. I'm sure he won't mind me quoting him verbatim here:

… there's not a parabola of rights where at certain ages through your life you have absolute rights and then they dwindle towards the end and they dwindle towards the start.

This very much echoes my position. The idea that a life, or what could amount to a life, is created simply to be harvested and destroyed seems dystopian and wrong to me. Despite what good may come from it, there are always ways that technology could be deployed to really interfere with that. Despite the best intentions of this bill, it will eventually create embryos with the genetic material of three adults while destroying another embryo or zygote. It is for this reason in particular that I cannot support this bill. The idea of using three embryos simply as a source of genetic materials is anathema to me, as someone who believes that life does begin at conception. Were the amendments preventing this type of procedure passed, then perhaps this bill could have been considered differently. Two of the five methods outlined in the bill do not require the destruction of embryos and zygotes, and I hope that research will focus on this area. But I do, of course, still have that issue around three genetic parents impacting.

I also note that, although this technology has been legalised in the United Kingdom for roughly five years, there have not been any viable births as a result. It's not as if this technology's widely embraced around the world and is providing results. It's banned in many jurisdictions. The United Kingdom has also not released any data on the efficacy of the project, and this causes me concern. I was involved in a briefing by experts in this area, and it was a question that was raised. They couldn't provide the data, citing privacy reasons. It might be that there are a few people who have actually engaged in this and, while their identity might not be revealed to me directly if they released the data, of course sometimes by just releasing data you can potentially breach the privacy of those individuals who have participated in such a program. It really concerns me; we're trying to make a decision on whether the efficacy of this program justifies a change in law, and not having that data means I can't have any confidence that we're doing the right thing.

While there have been reports of this procedure producing viable births in Mexico and in the Ukraine, neither of these two countries has explicitly legalised the technique and no medical journal has ever verified it. The World Health Organization has also cautioned against editing the human genome in a way that can be passed on to future generations, while the United States has outlawed mitochondrial donation trials.

I do not understand the need for Australia to rush into this area of medical research. Concerningly, contained within the legislation are immunities from civil liberty for ministers and civil servants. This kind of implies some uncertainty around the long-term effects of the procedure. While I genuinely support the attitude of 'at your own risk', this raises some serious questions over informed consent in this case.

I would like to thank those on both sides who have put their thoughts forward in a respectful and well-intentioned way, and certainly those who are advocating strongly for this for the way they have approached us. We don't always get approached on issues—I'm sure my colleagues can attest to this!—in such a respectful, collegiate and responsible way. But those involved in this topic have certainly conducted themselves well, and I very much appreciate the time and effort that's been put in by them. I have given careful thought to this and I expect that the bill will pass, probably on a similar ratio to what we saw in the House of Representatives. The bill will pass with or without my support. But, that being said, for the reasons I've outlined here today I cannot support it.