Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, I want to acknowledge that, in debates like these on these free and conscience votes that occur, we sometimes see the best of contributions across our chamber—contributions that draw on the personal. I acknowledge Senator Steele-John's contribution and Senator Keneally's contribution. In the other place, I know, the member for Mayo spoke with great passion and emotion about the circumstances of her grandson with mitochondrial disease and the challenges that her family was facing in relation to his diagnosis.

I think it's important that we also acknowledge the different perspectives that senators come from. Whilst the standing orders always provide that we shouldn't reflect upon the motivations of any other senator, especially in a debate like this, I think it's crucial that we respect those different perspectives, informed by those different life experiences, by those different values and by the many different factors that each senator will bring to this debate—regardless of the political position or, ultimately, the votes that will be cast on a debate—as each grapples with what is a very sensitive technology with ethical considerations that need to be approached carefully.

With all that said, I support the words of Senator Watt in relation to the explanation he provided. I do not support the amendment before the chamber and would discourage senators from supporting the amendment. The Embryo Research Licensing Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council would be responsible, under this bill, for regulating mitochondrial donation in humans. An expert regulatory approach will be applied. It is a body well equipped to undertake that role, in terms of its expertise. It has been in place under the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act since 2002.

If this amendment were to succeed, we would see a duplicative arrangement and an overlap of regulatory functions, as well as of acts, potentially. That is the clear view that I present, and I urge senators to consider that the consultation has led to an approach that provides for clear oversight and that will entail strong safeguards. We do not need to be imposing other layers that, as other contributors to this debate have acknowledged, may not even be through an appropriate entity in these circumstances.