Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The vote on this bill—the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021—is, in fact, my first opportunity to participate in a conscience vote in this parliament. The operation of a conscience vote has got a long history in this parliament. It has covered many matters. Contemporarily it's understood to deal with matters of life and death and matters of faith, but historically it was used as a matter of convenience up until 1963. Questions about tariffs and matters of trade and economic questions were conscience votes in this parliament. It's hard to imagine that being the case now.

The conscience vote has, of course, a long history in the Australian Labor Party and the Labor movement. In my view, it's critical for the functioning of our democracy. As my friend, Senator Gallagher, said earlier, it's an opportunity for people to participate in this debate without our party logos on, applying our reason, our value sets and our various faiths to these questions. It has been critical, I have to say, in terms of maintaining Labor unity and unity on the progressive side of Australian politics. It has allowed us to focus on our historical mission to lift living standards, to deliver economic growth and to build a stronger, fairer economy but also, on these narrow questions of conscience, to allow members and senators to express their views.

In that vein, I've taken this matter very seriously, and taking it seriously means taking the views of other senators seriously in this debate and respecting the very diverse sets of views of other senators both across the chamber and within my own party. It also involves not taking the views of others for granted based upon their faith background or their lack of faith background. In my view, it is possible for people of deep faith—that is, those whose faith informs their views about the sanctity of life and about the relationship between the dignity of individual lives and the collective interest, or state action in the national interest—to fall on either side of this argument and to speak and vote either for or against this legislation.

In terms of the caricatures that some people draw of them, it's possible that secular progressives, who are also mobilised by deep ethical considerations, concerns and frameworks, could also legitimately appear in today's debate and argue the case either for or against the legislation. Identity politics is dangerous and there's been too much of it over the last few decades, on the left and on the right, in terms of drawing caricatures of different people's positions. There should be a lot less of it. I think my friend Mr Jones's speech yesterday in the House on the other matter that's before this parliament was an illustration not only that Australia is more complex, more diverse and more of a patchwork than it's convenient for some of the people in our leading newspapers and some of the people in our political firmament to describe but also that Australians themselves as individuals hold quite diverse and thoughtful views on these subjects. Most Australians fall cheerfully between these identity politics caricatures of what people's views are supposed to be in relation to any issue.

I think the responsibility when there is a conscience vote is not to just assert a view based upon the values and the ethical background that you bring to the debate, but to bring some precision to one's own thinking when one considers these issues. To be really clear, not just in terms of moral clarity, I think it would be a profound error to make a values based decision about exercising one's vote if a senator is ignorant of the precise details of what is being proposed for senators to consider. And I have to say that, if I were confronted with a piece of legislation here that had aspects of genetic modification, such as cloning or gene-editing technologies, I would find those practices deeply problematic. I would have deep objections that would be difficult to overcome, if those issues were raised by the legislation before us. But I have come to the view that this piece of legislation, which has been carefully developed, does not engage with those issues.

The kinds of processes that are being proposed to be made lawful here, in terms of both research and clinical practice, don't alter the personal characteristics of future babies and future humans in any way; they just resolve this narrow question of whether a baby has properly functioning mitochondria or not. I think that's what this Senate should engage with—not in anticipation of other debates that might be occurring, in terms of the future of gene technology, and not shaped by views of past debates that have been won and lost in this place, but by the precise question that this bill engages. I don't accept the slippery slope argument that's made by some opponents of this legislation. As we evolve and as scientific research and clinical practice evolves, this parliament has to be able to make decisions about the right processes, the direction of regulation, and I don't accept that making this decision here will have any impact on future decisions that the parliament makes.

It is put by opponents of this legislation that there is some uncertainty in future research, and I accept that it's the case that there are some areas of uncertainty. I don't have the scientific capability to describe those here for you today. But that's why this is a two-stage process. That's why there are gates and proper evaluations. There are some certainties, though. If we don't adopt the approach that's outlined in this bill, there is no hope for the one in 5,000 babies—around one a week—who are born with this invariably fatal condition. We can't, in my view, be remote from that fact. It is a good thing that the legislation is named after a little girl. You can't have a cold heart when you look into the eyes of little children. We have to, in my view, consider that and not turn away from the reality for those little kids and their families.

This is a signature piece of legislation for Minister Hunt. I know that the Prime Minister has indicated his support for the legislation too. It's a signature piece of legislation. I know the Prime Minister may not want to have a policy legacy, and he's very unlikely to have one, but if this piece of legislation is achieved Minister Hunt will have a policy legacy, and it will be in the happy lives, the laughter and the growth of little children who haven't been born yet.

The scale of community consultation that underpins this legislation is absolutely appropriate. On the Labor Party's side, the scale of caucus debate and consideration of all of the different views on this question—which, as I've said, I deeply respect—has been excellent. I particularly want to highlight the role of the member for Macarthur, Dr Freelander, in his previous life a consulting paediatrician, in my colleagues' deliberations on this matter. Not only have his decades of experience in treating children with mitochondrial disease enriched our collective discussions and the public discussions on this question; in private, Mike has been a source of great support and somebody who's been able to answer questions both from me and from others.

Of course, there have been other complex questions on these issues that have been considered by previous parliaments. There have previously been debates in this chamber about reproductive technology, and this debate of course will not be the last. I will point to just one of those debates. The debate about whether or not in-vitro fertilisation treatment could be researched and then enter clinical practice in Australia was instructive. Under the direction of Carl Wood and Alan Trounson, Monash University researchers achieved the world's first IVF pregnancy, in 1973, and the birth of the third IVF baby, in 1980. They are pioneering scientific achievements. Tens of thousands—possibly hundreds of thousands—of happy, healthy children have been born to parents who might not otherwise have been able to conceive. And Australian parliaments were amongst the first in the world to develop and pass legislation and a regulatory framework to govern IVF treatments. It was the Hawke government that established the National Bioethics Consultative Committee in 1988 to address, amongst other things, surrogacy; information in relation to donated eggs and sperm; and genetic counselling.

One in 20 babies born in Australia today is a result of IVF treatment. And that is a good thing. It was controversial at the time. It is still controversial for some members and senators in this place, but it's been widely adopted. It is a good thing and it has enriched the lives of countless thousands of Australian families. The Senate should view this piece of legislation in that vein. This is an opportunity, in what will inevitably be a squalid end to this term of parliament as the government creeps towards calling an election, to do some good that will enrich the lives of little children and families all over Australia and give them some hope.