STATUTES AMENDMENT (SURROGACY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second Reading.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill was passed in the other place on 12 May. The original bill to amend the legislation in South Australia to allow gestational surrogacy was passed last year by this parliament. This issue is a conscience vote. It took many years (I think it was 3½ years) to get through the other place. As a consequence of the protracted delay in getting the legislation through both the other place and then, finally, through this house, the particular individual who motivated this legislation is five years older and we now need to amend the legislation. The legislation was passed in this place on 19 November 2009 by 31 votes to seven as a conscience vote; it was passed in the other place (on the voices) on 18 June 2008—so there was a 15 month delay there alone.

The original move to amend the legislation was brought about by the plight of Mrs Kerry Faggotter and her husband, Clive, and other parents of surrogate children. To be able to have a child is an absolutely wonderful gift, and people who are able to have children through altruistic gestational surrogacy should be given every opportunity to then acknowledge that those children are legitimately their children in every sense, if not 100 per cent biologically. That is usually the case, because it is usually a fertilised egg that is put into the gestational surrogate—the mother (and I use the term 'mother' because that is how people would look at the person carrying the baby)—but the actual biological mother is the person who cannot carry the child in her uterus. Obviously, the whole intent of this legislation is that we need to overcome that issue.

The problem is that the young chap who was born as a result of Clive and Kerry's dilemma through gestational surrogacy is nearly 10 years old. Clause 1(4) of the transitional provisions in the original legislation provided:

An application cannot be made under this clause if a child has been born as a result of the relevant pregnancy and the child is more than 5 years old on the day on which this clause comes into operation.

It took the Hon. John Dawkins 3½ years to negotiate with the government to pass this legislation. As a result of that delay, the young man is nearly 10 years old. So, that is what this amendment does. It is a very simple amendment. It does not change the intent at all of the legislation that was agreed to 31 to seven in this place last time around. Clause 1(4) now provides:

An application cannot be made under this clause if a child has been born as a result of the relevant pregnancy and the child is more than 10 years old on the day on which the Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy) Amendment Bill 2010 comes into operation.

So, it is just changed from five years old to 10 years old. It is as simple as that. The intent of the legislation has not changed and the sympathies are exactly the same. I hope that the vote in this place shows similar strong support for altruistic gestational surrogacy in South Australia. With that, I commend this bill to this house.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:09): I will speak very briefly to this bill. I certainly support this administrative amendment. We did have debate in this house quite some time ago regarding the issue of surrogacy, and I know there are very strong views for and against surrogacy. I am one who supports the fact that we need to support people who go through this process and not make life difficult for them in trying to achieve their goal of having a child. My concern—and I raised this the last time we debated this matter—is that, with regard to surrogacy, we are not extending the rights and the responsibilities to same-sex couples, and that seems to be completely ridiculous as we have been through the debate in this house about how same-sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as other couples.

The Social Development Committee is looking into the rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples with regard to being parents. At the moment we are happy for same-sex couples to be foster parents but we are really concerned about same-sex couples having the opportunity to adopt, for example. We are also saying, I think quite illogically, that same-sex couples should not be able to go through the process of surrogacy. With that reservation, I would like to commend the Hon. John Dawkins for the work that he has done, in particular, and, obviously, in this house our minister (John Hill) and Duncan McFetridge for making sure that this issue has some legal basis and that people who want to go through the surrogacy process (which, I would imagine, would be extremely difficult) get legal support for doing that.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (11:11): This was a private members' bill introduced by the Hon. John Dawkins in another place. The government bent over backwards to cooperate with the bill, which was a controversial bill and was decided on conscience lines. Owing to Mr Dawkins' infelicity with drafting he managed, by the effluxion of time, to exclude the principal beneficiary for whom he designed the bill from its provisions. We are asked here to amend the bill to accommodate his infelicity. I object to the Hon. John Dawkins putting out a press release in the election campaign which sought to blame me (as attorney-general) and my conscientious objection to surrogacy for his own incompetence in drafting the bill and moving it through parliament. I want to record that the reason why this boy is not covered by the bill is down to John Dawkins and John Dawkins alone.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:13): Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker—and it is good to see you in that position. Actually, we do have a very good Speaker in the member for Giles. Regarding the comments made by the member for Croydon, I understand his passion about this subject and his passion for many things in life.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: I will not enter into an argument with the member for Croydon now. I am very keen to see that this young man (whoever's fault it might have been, and I am not attributing blame to anybody here) should be allowed to be recognised as the legitimate biological child of Mr and Mrs Faggotter. I thank the house for its attention to this small amendment and I look forward to the bill passing through all stages.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.