House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy) Bill STATUTES AMENDMENT (SURROGACY) BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 13 November 2008. Page 927.) Mr VENNING House of Assembly Schubert Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:43): The Hon. Lea Stevens moved the adjournment of this bill, and I believe that she wanted to continue, but she is not present. I very much support this measure, and I congratulate my colleague the Hon. John Dawkins from the other place, who introduced this bill to facilitate what is known as altruistic gestational surrogacy. I believe that most members of this chamber would be aware of that and what it means. For many years, much work has taken place with a number of female constituents who are unable to carry children, even though they can become pregnant. One of the constituents who contacted the opposition, Kerry Faggotter, now has a son due to the willingness of her cousin to be the surrogate mother of the child, who has the genetics of both Kerry and her husband, Clive. This surrogacy was carried out interstate because such practices are illegal in South Australia. Under the bill, the opportunity for surrogacy would apply only to heterosexual couples in either a marriage relationship or a de facto relationship that was considered under the law in this state to be the same as a marriage relationship. The people in that relationship would benefit from the wishes of a family member who had children, and no money would change hands under such an agreement. This is a difficult matter, and the opposition has called this a conscience matter. I have a strong Lutheran ethic in my electorate, and I listen to those people every time I consider motions such as this. I have no problem at all supporting it, because I believe that, if they legitimately cannot have children in the normal way, I would not deprive couples of having children. It is one of the greatest privileges in life, and I look forward in the future to watching my children progress through life. I would not deny any couple that privilege. I believe that if there is anything we can do to assist them with this, particularly when you have a person prepared to carry the child (be it a relative, friend or whatever), I am happy to support it. I have not swotted up on the legal implications (obviously, the Attorney-General would know all the ramifications of that), but I am amazed that, with the Attorney being a forward-thinking person, we have not addressed this before, because other states have. It is pretty sad to know that couples in South Australia—and there would be hundreds affected by this dilemma—are required to go interstate to have a procedure. I think it is up to us to expedite this process quickly and to pass it. I support it. Debate adjourned.