Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1542:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 3), before the heading specifying Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002, insert:

Gene Technology Act 2000

1A Subsection 10(1) (definition of gene technology )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

gene technology means:

(a) any technique for the modification of genes or other genetic material; and

(b) a mitochondrial donation technique (within the meaning of Part 2 of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002);

but does not include:

(c) sexual reproduction; or

(d) homologous recombination; or

(e) any other technique specified in the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 1, item 103, page 56 (lines 16 to 23), section 47 to be opposed.

It seeks to amend schedule 1. In effect, it's about introducing a degree of accountability and transparency to the MRT process that is the subject of the bill in the debate.

I'm particularly keen to advance this amendment in light of the evidence that we were unable to actually ascertain as we undertook the inquiry through the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which tabled this report, Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021 [Provisions] in August 2021. We participated in what felt like a very rushed hearing, and perhaps that's why today it's really important that we do take the time. We've had the time to have a look. My amendment really responds to the fact that when we look at the UK—the only other jurisdiction in the world where this scheme, this technique, is being operated—we were unable to get any data to explain to us about what was going on, to get an indication of what had happened in the five years that this scheme has been in place in the UK. I don't think we need to make the same mistake in Australia. Australians expect us to be transparent about what's going on, and Australians are investing $10 million, if the bill should pass, in a new technology that requires radical change to the laws of this country to allow techniques that have been illegal for the last 20 years. We deserve to know what's going on.

I believe that the long-term effects of germline editing should absolutely require a higher level of oversight from expert government agencies than is currently provided for in this bill, and I do believe that there is a role for the existing government bodies to oversee this process as they would do in normal circumstances. So, we need to let the efficacy and safety of these techniques first be proven through the rigours of the scientific process before we legalise them, and they should be given the scrutiny that is outlined in my amendment. I urge senators to vote for this commonsense measure of a higher degree of accountability that currently exists within the bill.