Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to start by acknowledging the extensive discussion of the science and the technology that has already been had. I want to acknowledge the incredible contributions of so many of my colleagues in the chamber. It has been an education. I've enjoyed listening to people and will continue to follow the debate for the rest of tonight and tomorrow, because this is a very, very complex piece of legislation and a human issue. Any parent's first response on hearing that they are having a baby or on hearing of a pregnancy is, 'I hope the child will be healthy.' Sadly, not all children are born healthy, but modern medicine has assisted to change the fate of many children. With medical advancement comes not only a desire to do good but a responsibility to do what is right. So our ethics are: to do no harm, don't intervene—health at what cost?

Strangely, we often see more outrage expressed about animal testing of products than about the value of human life and the welfare of human beings. Each day, human children, Australian children, are abused in squalor. There is elder abuse and domestic violence, but mention animal testing and people lose their minds. So what value do we put on human life? When is an embryo a life? For women who've experienced joy at seeing a tiny heart beating on a pregnancy scan, life begins at conception. On the other hand, extreme right-to-choose activists openly celebrate abortion at any stage of pregnancy. For me, this is a dilemma. I support technology that allows parents to have healthy children, but this legislation deals with genetic modifications and donations of mitochondrial DNA. I'm a mother who wants everyone to experience having their own children but also feels that people at risk of passing on disabling conditions via their genes should have access to technology.

We've just had a great contribution from Senator Pratt about access to other methods of having children—whether that be IVF, adoption or surrogacy—instead of going down a technological road. But, of course, the problem is that the child does not feel biologically the parents' own. My own experience is that I understand only too well the all-consuming desire to have your own child. For me, it was a very, very long six years before I was able to have a baby. But this desire to hold your own child is more complex in this situation, because the mother knows the risk of having her own child. She knows the pain and the suffering that she may have endured and certainly understands what is possible for that child.

Critics fear that legislating the use of mitochondrial technology will open the door to laws allowing the choosing of babies' gender, hair colour or height. But Maeve's law, this legislation, is intentionally narrow to avoid that. Mitochondrial donation techniques don't alter personal characteristics and traits, because personal characteristics and traits such as eye colour are derived from the nuclear material. Others are worried that living embryos will be discarded once genetic material is obtained, but our legislation dictates that the procedure happens before an embryo is created.

I have followed the discussion of the amendments that are being proposed by Senator Canavan and Senator O'Neill, and possibly others, and I look forward to seeing those come forward, because I hope that they may assist me with some of the concerns that I have come upon in researching this legislation.

I want to acknowledge the friends and the families of Maeve, their advocacy and how personal this issue is to them—how close this is to their hearts, in a way that many of us will never understand. But we live in a world where science and technology mean that we have to make decisions that previous parliaments could not have imagined. The ethical considerations around artificial intelligence, as simple as driverless cars, and the science of human DNA selection and amendment are incredibly, incredibly serious and important to the future of our race, our species and our society going forward. This is technology that is being considered in animals, but I keep reflecting: just because we can, does it mean we should?

So I will spend the rest of this debate period re-reading the correspondence that I've received from a wide range of stakeholders and following the discussions and contributions of my colleagues. The ability to use technology, hopefully, to remove suffering from this particular disease and perhaps others in the future is incredibly tempting, but I don't feel confident that we truly understand the door that we'd be opening by passing this legislation. For that reason, I look forward to any amendments that are being proposed to this legislation, because it truly is, I believe, a fork in the road of our society, the use of technology and how we think about human life.