Page 3462 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think that in these instances the Government's original fears of professionals marketing themselves to facilitate substitute parent agreements are misplaced. I believe that the decision of a woman to bear a child for a close family member or friend is a decision which will require a great deal of thought, counselling and support both from her family and friends and from appropriate professionals. If she has been encouraged to receive that support from the beginning, she will be encouraged to follow through with that support and will have someone to debrief with and support her if she begins to feel that she would like to keep the child she is currently bearing.
In his speech the Minister, Mr Connolly, said that the sisters would not be able to seek the services of a doctor to facilitate pregnancy. The question which should be asked from that point is: How else will the pregnancy be facilitated, and is this fair to the couples involved? Mrs Carnell's amendments address this matter adequately. Although clause 8 of the Bill now makes it clear that, contrary to the fears expressed by some people, the Bill does not intend to prohibit professionals such as doctors and lawyers from giving general information and advice on substitute parent agreements, I wonder whether this is truly sufficient. Again, Mrs Carnell's amendments address this particular matter.
Madam Speaker, I was briefed by Ms Meg Wallace of the Attorney-General's Department on the provisions of the Bill some weeks ago. It was with regret that I heard at the time that not all of the people who had made submissions in relation to the discussion paper and exposure draft of the legislation had received final copies of the Bill to peruse. I trust that that has now occurred and that all of the people who expressed an interest in this issue are now substantially comfortable with the existing provisions of the Bill. My understanding is that this has occurred, and certainly Mrs Carnell's proposed amendments will improve the Bill considerably from its present form.
I am happy that members of this Assembly have had useful discussions about the provisions of the Bill and that Mrs Carnell's amendments will receive their support. Mrs Carnell's amendments also resolve a potential difficulty that I had with the Bill about the penalty provisions. The penalty provision for a person entering into a commercial substitute parent agreement is $10,000 or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. The penalty for a person knowingly providing any professional or technical services to another person who is, or intends to be, a party to a substitute parent agreement, commercial or non-commercial, to become pregnant for the purposes of the agreement was also $10,000 or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. Mrs Carnell's amendments address this anomaly by placing the appropriate weight on the banning of commercial substitute parent agreements, while presenting the Assembly's view - I believe that it is the Assembly's view - that non-commercial substitute parent agreements should be tolerated and facilitated as far as is possible in the circumstances.
MR HUMPHRIES (10.17): The Assembly has had quite a spate of issues which might be described as moral issues or issues with a moral dimension in the last six months of its life. I do not know why this has happened; but it should mean that we should be considering very carefully the steps we take, especially if one argues that we need to consider the sort of mandate the Assembly might have to pass legislation which has far-reaching consequences for, in a sense, ethical considerations like euthanasia, abortion, and, in this case, surrogacy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .