Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a representative of Queensland and Australia, I announce that One Nation's position is to oppose this bill, the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. This bill would legalise research that remains experimental, with no accurate predictions of outcome.

Mitochondria are tiny parts of a cell that generate most of the chemical energy needed to power the cell's biochemical reactions and are part of our DNA. I empathise with those parents who are identified as potentially at high risk of transferring this genetic disorder to their future children. There are high risks to those children born out of the proposed experiments and a high risk of end-of-life scenarios if the experiments fail in utero or before that point. This is risky. The bill contemplates the use of multiple techniques, which may be addressed under licence, to achieve pregnancy after genetic intervention. The intention is to intervene genetically, with the outcomes permanent across future generations, by removing identified offending genetic content. One problem is that future generations may be affected by other, as yet unidentified, changes—unknown at this stage—that are permanent. Irrespective of what some say, this bill is promoting gene editing, a practice that should be discouraged, as it goes beyond therapy. It will not help any people with mitochondrial disease—not one. There are many alternatives for achieving parenthood for the couples identified as at high risk of passing on mitochondrial disease.

There are a number of specific problems with the bill, some of which I'll now highlight. There's been a clear failure to involve independent, unbiased persons in the decision-making process. The regulator, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, is excluded under the bill—excluded—without adequate explanation from any consultation role in issuing a licence for experimentation. That's a big concern.

The bill puts limits on the extent to which information shall be reported. Why, especially when it's experimental? There remains no feedback on the effectiveness of experimental procedures carried out in the United Kingdom, where experiments similar to those proposed here were legalised in 2015. To say that the failure to report back on the outcomes of experiments conducted in the United Kingdom over a six-year period is only because of privacy issues is somewhat fallacious. I ask: is the real reason for the failure to report back that there have been no successes?

There are serious deficits in the bill related to a lack of accountability for adverse outcomes of the experiments. What's to happen to human tissue when there is failed embryo development? There are indemnities from liability for virtually all involved in the activities if something goes wrong. Where's the accountability, the scrutiny, for an experiment? There are no ways for a child born out of the experimental procedures to be compensated for injuries, negative conditions or loss stemming from the experimental activities. There is no accountability for those who would intervene and experiment with living human beings. That's wrong, and I cannot support this bill.

I wish to commend Senators Deb O'Neill and Matt Canavan for their considered amendments, which would ensure both scrutiny and accountability. We will support their amendments. I remain very concerned about this bill and the potential lack of respect it shows for the nature of being human, the lack of respect for human dignity and the lack of respect for the way we value people.