Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Reconciliation) Share this | Hansard source

DODSON () (): I rise to speak to the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. I've listened to colleagues across the benches and heard much of the angst and pain that we know is associated with this particular illness. I've given this bill some deep consideration. I've read carefully the submissions of those who support it, those who have guarded reservations and those who have outright opposed it. I am by no means an expert in any of the complexities that arise in contemplation of the particular disease or of the methodologies of the science that goes with this, and I have respect for all those of differing opinions and positions. That's why, I suppose, this is a conscience vote. I have no right to examine the consciences of others or to interrogate their beliefs that are genuinely held. But, in the end, I have decided I will vote for this bill. I am untroubled by that decision, but I feel I owe a short explanation as to why I arrived there.

While I respect the views and conclusions of those who oppose the legislation, I must say from the outset that I do not support arguments that mitochondrial donation would lead to dystopian scenarios like the development of designer babies. While I acknowledge there are serious moral and ethical reservations, I can't accept the third-party caution that opponents of this bill espouse. I prefer to accept the views of scientists as represented by the peak body, Science and Technology Australia. In their submission to the inquiry by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee they said:

The concern that mitochondrial donation would result in "three-parent" children is not founded in scientific fact. Placing the DNA of a mother's nucleus into a donor egg does not significantly change the genetic makeup of the child.

But it does prevent mitochondrial DNA defects from being inherited by the child. That would have to be something wonderful.

I'm comforted by the extensive consultation and scientific reviews that have preceded this bill and the proposal to stage its implementation by starting with clinical trials. I've canvassed the range of religious, philosophical, biotechnical, bioethical and forensic arguments about mitochondrial donation, and I've acknowledged the risks and uncertainties that attach to it, but I have faith in the skill, integrity and authenticity of the medical profession to manage those risks and uncertainties not only in the best interests of their patients but in the best interests of humanity. I truly believe that any risk is ultimately outweighed by the benefits that mitochondrial donations will deliver.

In the end, my decision to support the bill is driven by very practical considerations and influenced by the practitioners who have treated and cared for those affected by the consequences of mitochondrial diseases. Last night, as I wrestled with the pros and cons of some of these matters, I received a text from a very, very old friend, who had dragged me away from being taken by the police as one of the stolen generations over 60 years ago and who had never bothered to contact me in politics. She was asking for my support because of her dealings with this matter as a nurse and a health professional over many years. I'd already made my decision by that time, but I was supported in my own grapplings with this by someone I knew and trusted and who had practical experience of these matters. I was in the right space.

If it is in the realm of medical science to save a baby from disabling disease or death, which is the certain prognosis of this mitochondrial disease, then I say it behoves us to embrace that science. But the practice of that science must be subject to strict regulatory oversight. I support the bill and I recommend it to the chamber.