Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. Excuse my voice; I had COVID over Christmas and, while I've fully recovered, for some reason my voice hasn't got back to its usual force. I apologise if I'm—

Yes, I'm sure you will, Senator Seselja. Like all issues where we get a conscience vote in this chamber, this is an extremely difficult issue, and I very much appreciate the fact that my party has a generous view when it comes to the issue of conscience votes—particularly where there are issues of life and death, but also more generally—and that there are opportunities for people in the same political party to accept the proposition that there are people with different points of view and that you get a chance not only to express those different points of view but also to vote in accordance with what your conscience is telling you on a particular issue.

In the time that I've been here, there have been a number of these issues. There was the issue of euthanasia as it related to the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. That was a very divisive debate, I have to say, but again it was an opportunity to express a point of view based on my own personal beliefs. I've also had the issue of same-sex marriage while I've been here. Again, those have been issues of great import, and I welcome the fact that my political party has given me the opportunity to exercise my conscience when it comes to those issues.

The issue that relates to this bill, in respect of mitochondrial disease, again raises significant and deep issues for our community to give consideration to. I'm aware that when this bill was debated in the lower house there was majority support for it, and it now comes to the Senate for a final determination of the issue. I've tried to reach out to both sides of the debate and talk to people in those communities which have an interest in this issue to try and inform myself, to the best of my ability, as to what the issues are and what the concerns of the people on each side of the debate are. I've tried to speak to them directly and get a sense of what it is that they are seeking to do by either supporting the passage of this legislation or opposing it.

I have to say that we have great sympathy for parents of children who have this condition and great empathy for the situation in which they find themselves: dealing with children with this condition. From their point of view, it's very heartbreaking to see the circumstances in which their children find themselves. But there are other considerations, I think, that other people have raised, where there are fundamental issues of life and death that need to be taken into account. Those people have raised issues about changing the DNA of individuals, and the long-term and unknown effects that changing that DNA might have on the community.

One of the points that has been influential in my thinking came from discussing it with an ethicist in South Australia who's familiar with these serious issues and has spent a lifetime dealing with them. That point is that, in this process, we change the DNA not only for one generation but also for all future generations. This is an issue not just about the effect on one individual; this is an issue about what effect it's going to have on future generations. You've got two issues competing: on one hand, you've got the issue of what do you do with parents who find themselves in these very difficult circumstances; on the other hand, there are broader issues for the community to consider about the long-term effects of giving approval to legislation that can affect people not just for one generation but also for all future generations. I've tried to balance out these concerns, noting that it's an extremely difficult issue, and I've tried to listen carefully to the contributions of other people—both those who are in favour of the legislation and those who are of a different point of view. I've finally come to the view that I will oppose this legislation, but I want to make it clear to those people who have a different point of view that I've tried to think as deeply as I can about the issues that arise from voting for or against the legislation. I want to make it clear to those groups that I've put deep thought into the way in which I'm going to exercise my vote.

I am aware that there are some amendments to this legislation. I've been fortunate enough to speak with Senator Deb O'Neill, who has done a lot of work on this issue and has been involved from the start with discussions about it. I understand that she is proposing three amendments.

I'm not sure if Senator Steele-John is referring to those amendments. I understand they may get some support from our colleagues in the Greens, which would be a very good thing. They are in regard to issues which I think the government, and more particularly the minister, should have taken into account before bringing this bill to the parliament. One of the issues relates to the importance of civil liability in respect of these cases. It seems remarkable to me that, where questions are still up in the air about how successful these medical treatments might be, and about all of the medical issues associated with them, we find ourselves in a situation where the government is proposing to remove civil liability for the scientists who are conducting these treatments. I have to say, I do find it very remarkable that what is essentially a government bill—I appreciate it's a conscience vote, but it is a government bill—is coming before us and we find ourselves in a situation where the government is proposing that scientists in this area have no—I appreciate we've reached the time and I ask that I be in continuance.

Debate interrupted.