Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2779 ..

Mr Humphries: But you people agreed to criminal sanctions for commercial surrogacy; it was in your legislation.

MR BERRY: I am not talking about commercial surrogacy. I am talking about somebody who chooses to terminate a pregnancy which is as a result of a surrogacy arrangement. That point has not been debated here and I think most people know it. It might be taboo in the scheme of things, but it is an extremely important issue for women generally and it cannot be ignored.

That is the only point I wish to make. A whole heap of other points have been made in the course of the debate which I would have no reason to be concerned about. I merely reiterate the point that the process has been quite appalling. Community members have been hooked up in this process in a completely unsatisfactory arrangement.

We should have been able to come in here fully informed, fully advised by the Law Reform Commission or anybody else for that matter, and sit down as legislators and make law which affects all territorians and probably set some precedents for people in other states. We are not as fully informed as we ought to be. Anybody in here who denies that is kidding himself.

There are also the issues about what happens in the rest of the country. It is fine for us to lead the country on a whole heap of issues. I have been involved in some of that over time. But, as I see it, there has not been much informed debate around the country about how we might have a nationally consistent approach on this issue. Those are matters which I do not think have been properly debated in the scheme of things. I reiterate the point about poor process. There are issues which have to be considered by this commission, which is the reason for having the sunset clause.

It is regrettable that we have to go about it in this way. I am happy that we will deal with the problems of some community members who have been involved in the process, but at the end of the day we have to have regard to our approach to making laws in this territory and what precedents we might set for the rest of the country in relation to these matters, complex as they are.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (5.05): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I am going to support the Stanhope amendment. I see it as an alternative to Mr Osborne's amendment No 1. As I read these two amendments, the effect of Mr Stanhope's amendment is that it allows for further children to be conceived under these surrogacy arrangements with these parentage orders applying until June 2002, while Mr Osborne's amendment allows in effect for the sunset clause to cut in now and basically allow only those already born who are now seeking parentage orders to receive them, with those in the future who will come under similar arrangements not receiving the benefit of these new parentage orders.

It seems to me that, if a person born next month under the same arrangements was not entitled to a parentage order of the same kind which a person born last month was, that would be inherently unfair. And I see no reason why the commencement of this legislation should be the arbitrary date on which that right is determined.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .