FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS (SURROGACY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 March 2012.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (10:56): I rise to support the bill introduced by the member for Adelaide and congratulate her on introducing this bill. I had the pleasure of progressing a bill regarding surrogacy through this chamber (initiated by the Hon. John Dawkins from the other place) that allowed South Australia to catch up with the other states and allow surrogacy to be part of accepted medical procedures and techniques here in South Australia.

There is nothing better than having children. If you are unable to have children and there is a technique available that reverses that situation and enables you to have children, then why should we not be looking at those techniques? This is not something that is going to create any issues with genetic modification and it is not going to create a lot of other ethical issues surrounding pregnancies—terminations and other artificial reproduction techniques that are available out there at this present time.

This bill is just an extension of the current surrogacy legislation that is seen all over Australia, and it once again brings South Australia into step with the other states. The mother may be unable to have a child because of a physical deformity through an accident or illness. I can give a personal case of this. One of my friends was thrown off a horse and broke her pelvis, badly fractured it. She was devastated when the doctor said that she could not have children because of the way they had to restructure her pelvis with plates and screws and things.

She was still quite fertile, she would have been able to conceive, but she would not have been able to carry that baby to full term. In her case is it not a sensible thing to allow her, if she does become pregnant, to then have that embryo collected and put into a surrogate mother? I do not see anything wrong with that at all. I do not think there are any valid arguments in 2012 against that.

We do not want to see South Australian mothers having to move interstate to have children of their own. We do not want mothers having to move and go overseas to have children of their own, and we certainly do not want to have any commercial transactions involved in surrogacy. The most important thing that we do want to do is allow parents to have children of their own, and this small step is another vital step to include all of those out there to use the surrogacy, not just those who are unable to conceive, but those who can conceive but their pregnancy is going to cause an issue with their own health. We need to allow them to better use the surrogacy system.

I can think of other examples of conditions where the mother's life would be in mortal danger: some of the pregnancy toxaemias, some of the diabetic conditions or blood incompatibilities. Some of them are controllable now, and perhaps for the first pregnancy they may be fine. I am rhesus positive, my mother was rhesus negative, and my father was rhesus positive. I was born a yellow baby. My mother reacted to my blood and so produced antibodies which fortunately did not affect me severely. However, we see many incidences where medical conditions can severely threaten the life of the mother.

This bill allows those parents, where the mother's life is at risk, to use the surrogacy system, and that is what it really does. There is not a lot to say about this bill other than it is a very sensible move. There are a number of conditions which make it impossible for a mother to have a full-term pregnancy, so using surrogacy is something that we should not take away from them. This piece of legislation is not controversial. All the other states are doing it. It is just catching South Australia up with the rest. With that I strongly support this bill, and I urge other members to look at this bill to see the benefits of this small amendment, and to make sure that they support the bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:00): I rise, too, to support this excellent bill put up by the member for Adelaide, the Family Relationships (Surrogacy) Amendment Bill 2012. This builds on the excellent work undertaken by the Hon. John Dawkins from another place in getting the original surrogacy legislation through this place. When I was on the Social Development Committee in my first term in this place, we dealt with the surrogacy issue, and we heard many accounts of what people had to go through if they needed a surrogate so that they could have a family. Generally, it involved spending at least $50,000 and going interstate because it was not legal in this state, and it certainly seemed absurd to me during the hearings to hear from all these people that they needed to go interstate to have these children with a surrogate.

I commend the work that the Hon. John Dawkins committed to this, and I think this is a very sensible amendment that the member for Adelaide has brought forward. It broadens the eligibility criteria for a potential mother so that her own life and health can be protected if it would be seriously impacted by pregnancy or delivery of an infant. I note that the member for Adelaide had an inquiry to her office about a South Australian mother who had a serious health issue and would likely break her hip if she attempted to deliver another child. As with the earlier surrogacy legislation which came through this place, she would have to move interstate.

I note the clauses that are covered under this amendment of the Family Relationships Act 1975 include that the female commissioning parent is, or appears to be, unable on medical grounds to carry a pregnancy or to give birth; or there appears to be a risk that a serious genetic defect, serious disease or serious illness would be transmitted to a child born to the female commissioning parent; or there appears to be a risk that becoming pregnant or giving birth to a child would result in physical harm to the female commissioning parent, being harm of a kind or of a severity unlikely to be suffered by women becoming pregnant or giving birth generally.

As the father of a couple of lads, I think the role women play in propagating the human species is fantastic. They carry a huge burden for the human race, and I think us blokes get it easy. I seriously think we get the easy part of the bargain. I commend everyone involved in having a family but I certainly commend women for what they have to go through. I commend the courage of the women and the couples who brought this issue forward in the original legislation, and also in relation to upgrading the act so that there are better criteria for families and potential mothers, that they can have babies safely as long as they can find the appropriate surrogate, and have a happy family, as many of us have. I commend the bill.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:05): I also rise to support the member for Adelaide in the presentation of this bill before the parliament. As a person, my greatest achievement in my life is actually having children—a son and a daughter, who are 22 and 20 now, that I will love forever. With my wife and me, it was our capacity to celebrate our closeness by having our kids that has allowed our life to be fulfilled.

Mr Pengilly: Have some more!

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Finniss says, 'Have some more.' I am a little bit past that, but the member for Adelaide, in bringing this bill to the house, has actually identified an area of the law which does not allow families, because of a health issue, to celebrate the closeness of their relationship by bringing a child into that relationship. I want to commend the member for Adelaide. I know from her presentation to the Liberal Joint Party that it is a conscience vote for us, but I am hopeful that the majority of the members will stand to support it.

I know there may be differences of opinion on this, but all we are trying to do is ensure that for those people out there who have health issues associated with the lady's ability to carry a baby without personal harm to herself—and in the case given by the member for Adelaide it was about breaking a hip—legislation exists to provide the opportunity for a surrogacy to occur and for the baby resulting from that to be recognised as the child of the mother and the father of the relationship.

The bill is a relatively simple one. Certainly, as the member for Morphett has already told the house, it exists in other states. It is appropriate that South Australia moves forward in the way that it considers this. I am fairly old-fashioned when it comes to a lot of things but I think it is really important that this house recognises the importance of the bill and the fact that for some wonderful people in our communities who, because of the health risks posed to them in carrying a baby have not been able to do so, this bill will provide an opportunity for something to happen. I hope there is swift passage of the bill through the house.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Recreation and Sport) (11:08): Very briefly, in general, I think it would be fair to say that I am in favour of more children in our society, and I understand that when people who desperately want children cannot have them or find it very difficult to have them or have to face the threat of severe medical consequences for having them, that is a very difficult situation and an unhappy situation to be in.

What concerns me about surrogacy, very simply, is that children become part of a contractual arrangement. It becomes the start of, or not very far away from, the commodification of children. It does not make it any easier for the people who want to have children. It does not make it less difficult for them to go through those circumstances, but it makes children part of a contractual arrangement, and introduces all the complications that come with surrogacy upon birth, often—not all the time, obviously. There are some completely happy surrogacy arrangements but it can lead down the track to some very difficult circumstances and the person who is most affected by those changes and by those circumstances is the child itself, who had no say in that arrangement.

There are plenty of children who get delivered into unhappy arrangements—not of their own making—but I do not believe that we should voluntarily put children in that position. So, my objection to this bill and to similar surrogacy bills is that children just get caught up in contractual arrangements and it increases the commodification of children. Children obviously are people and should be treated as such. Sometimes life is just the way it is, and that is a very difficult thing for some people, but I do not think that surrogacy is an answer.

The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Sorry, the member for Taylor.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (11:11): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: it has been a longstanding tradition in this house that during private members' time, members are granted the time to speak on debates. The member for Taylor has indicated that she wants to adjourn debate to make remarks later on.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: My biggest concern is that there are other people who want to speak on this.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Vlahos.