Page 2721 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
expressing how I feel, and I am expressing how a large number of people in the community feel, having regard to the disgust that they feel that we are taking ourselves down the litigious path that puts a price on a child’s life. That is what this does. The effect of this bill is to put a price on life: this is the cost of raising and maintaining a kid, and that is what they are worth. I think it is a very dangerous path.
It is easy for those interjecting from across the chamber, because again we have a contradiction from across the chamber. On one hand they say, “Yes, we’re all in favour of kids,” and on the other they say, “No, we’re not against having children.” If that is the case then vote for this bill. It is quite simple. If that is what you truly believe, as the Chief Minister said in the paper this morning, it is really simple: vote for the bill. You cannot say you are in favour of it and then vote against it. You cannot say, “It’s not the case; we’ve been misrepresented,” and then vote no. It is crocodile tears again, and that is all it is.
Anyone who is on the IVF program will know that one of the things they are told is—and it often happens—you do not just get one, you get two, three or four. They often implant more embryos. I do not know the technical detail; I have not listened to the case and I have not been sitting in the court. But one of the side effects and consequences of IVF is that you often get multiple births. I have not heard in Australia of a single other case where, in what is often termed “life’s little accident” or “one of God’s little accidents”, you go and sue for it. It is a risk; it is a consequence. Quite clearly, we are saying here today that if we start putting prices on these things then it is incredibly dangerous.
Somebody said to me, in a flippant moment, I suspect, “Well, what happens when the parents get old and the twins look after them?” I hope my twins look after me. I saw a sign once in the rehab ward at Woden that said: “Get your revenge. Grow old enough to be a burden to your children.” It was a bit flippant and a bit tongue-in-cheek, but as we get older our kids do look after us. So as these children age and they look after their parents, will the parents pay the money back? Will they give the money back for the damages because they have now got two children to support them in their old age, to care for them, to love them, to nurture them? I am not cynical enough to talk about the return of service, but in terms of modern parlance that is what you might call it.
There is a natural effect here on families. Once we start valuing the components of families, if it is $400,000 for the second child, what is the first child worth? Is there a discount rate for the third? If you had four, is there a discount rate for the fourth? Who determines this? You cannot put a price on a child and the cost of a child. Did I spend $400,000 on each of my twins? That sounds like about $20,000 a year. That is $40,000 a year for the pair of them over the last 20 years. For most of that time, I did not earn that much, so clearly I did not. I would suggest that, when we get to the $400,000 amount, it is a really interesting calculation. I would be intrigued to see it.
There are so many people who use IVF and it fails for them, and it is a huge disappointment for them. They would love to have a child. Here we have someone who has been lucky enough to have two children and they are suing for damages. I think we are starting down an amazing slippery slope. If we continue down that slippery slope, what else will we put a value on, what else will we legislate for and what else will we end up demeaning? As far as I am concerned, a child is priceless.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .