Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am in continuation. Given that this bill is modelled on the legislation introduced in the United Kingdom, it's worth looking at what progress has been made in the six years it has been in operation. As I understand, only one clinic in the UK has been authorised to conduct research into mitochondrial donation technology, and 21 couples have received treatment. However, I am advised that, due to privacy reasons, we cannot be provided with any information as to the outcomes of these cases. I find that absolutely extraordinary, given that we have been invited to pass legislation based on the UK model itself. I don't expect the names, the ages or the locations of people, but information as to how many viable pregnancies and births have resulted from mitochondrial donation or how many embryos have had to be destroyed to achieve the favoured result would be understandably useful information in considering arguments on advancing these technologies. But there is none.

The only reports of successful births as a result of mitochondrial donation procedure have come out of Mexico and, of all places, the Ukraine. Neither of these countries has explicitly legalised the procedure. There are no reports in the Lancet, and, as I understand it, they are not considered as legitimate examples by any international medical research authority. I note the United States has prohibited clinical trials into mitochondrial donation on the grounds that it constitutes genome editing and, as such, presents an unacceptable risk. Similarly the World Health Organization has indicated its opposition to making modifications to the genetic code in humans capable of being passed on to future generations. Therefore we have no compelling information as to the types of methods that have been used in these British cases, and little or nothing about the success or otherwise as to the methods being an assistive reproductive technology. Particularly when the procedures necessitate the destruction of embryos, simply lining up to pass legislation without sufficient evidence or any real idea as to its effectiveness or its prospects of success is, I believe, just not good enough.

In 2006 this House debated whether therapeutic cloning through the use of human embryos should be permitted. I said at that stage that an embryo should be afforded the same respect from the moment of creation regardless of the method, intention or age. My position remains the same, unless it can be clearly shown that there are real and substantial benefits to humanity itself that may outweigh that ethical opposition. I'm not opposed to mitochondrial research or all the associated donation technologies. Clearly, we need to be working towards ways to mitigate the risk of children being born with mitochondrial diseases. I believe the maternal spindle transfer may be one of those ways, and I would be prepared to support legislation that allows this technique going forward. However, to support methods that would require at least one human embryo being destroyed at every try, successful or not, is a bridge too far for me.

I understand my position is going to disappoint some people. But, ethically, I cannot support clinical research or practices involving these human embryo technologies. I will exercise my conscience vote to vote against the bill as it presently stands.

See this speech in context