Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of Senator Canavan's amendments. I do so for many of the reasons that he outlined, but my plea here tonight is for those senators who are voting for the bill to consider voting for these amendments. These amendments are commonsense ones that ensure the primacy of the parliament. There is actually—and I think some of the people who are voting for this bill have acknowledged this—a slight leap of faith we are taking here, given the paucity of evidence out of the United Kingdom. Senator Steele-John, you said there is an understandable red flag for some members and senators. While I respect the position you've put, that is a red flag. For those members who are supporting this legislation, it is worth considering these amendments. Ask yourself this question: given how little we know, based on the scientific evidence and research that is available to us now, about this novel and untested technique, why are we willing to sign away the parliament's ability to revisit and to examine the results of something we won't have for 10 years time?

I actually struggle to think of another example where a parliament would agree to simply give away its decision-making authority and its primacy to an executive on such a vexed and significant question. For example, with national security laws we regularly ask for them to be sunsetted and we regularly ask for them to be revisited by the parliament. We regularly ask that they be reviewed in order to ensure that those extraordinary or interventionist powers are being used appropriately. Here, it's not about whether the powers are being used; it's about whether the evidence should prompt us to think anew about the technology we're authorising.

So even if you do agree with Senator Watt—and I respect his point of view—that you would like to see the clinical application of mitochondrial donation, it is still worth considering whether, on principle, as a parliament, we should be giving away that decision for something that the bill says could happen in 10 years time, without having the parliament examine the evidence and the data that will come from those trials.

I have been clear with the chamber about the fact that I don't support the legislation, but I do repeat my view, as I did with the last amendment, that this amendment improves the bill. And, if it is the will of the chamber that the bill is passed, I would like to see the bill improved.

I think Senator Canavan has highlighted one of the areas of the bill where, no matter what your opinion is on the final outcome, you can see the benefit to the parliament and members—some of whom might still be here in 10 years time and some not. That is, we should allow the parliament to make that decision, and not have it delegated by authority to the executive.