House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Family Relationships (Surrogacy) Amendment Bill FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS (SURROGACY) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 29 March 2012.) The Hon. J.D. HILL House of Assembly Kaurna Minister for Health and Ageing Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Minister for the Arts The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts) (10:33): I will speak briefly to express my support for the amendment moved by the member for Adelaide, who consulted me about the construction of the legislation, and I was able to provide her some technical advice from my agency in relation to that, and I think some slight amendments were made as a result of that conversation. Obviously, this is a conscience vote for the Labor Party. I know some of my colleagues have deeply held views which would put them in opposition to this set of arrangements. I, on the other hand, support the proposition because it really is not a threshold issue any longer. We have already agreed as a parliament to allow surrogacy in our state. This proposition extends the availability of surrogacy to two classes of people who, otherwise, are unable to have access to it. As I understand it, the two classes are, first, women whose pregnancy is unlikely to go to full-term; and, secondly, women whose health is likely to be put at risk as a result of their pregnancy. I think that is quite a sensible extension; it is not a dramatic extension. It is probably only going to be used by a relatively small number of people in the future, but it is humane and it extends the general principle of surrogacy to people who otherwise would not be able to have children. I commend the member for Adelaide for this proposition. It is completely capable of working adequately within our state. It extends the general principle to a relatively small number of extra people. As I said, it is not a threshold issue—we have already debated surrogacy and agreed to it—so to those on this side and elsewhere in the house who are contemplating whether or not they should support it, I strongly urge them to support this measure. It is entirely consistent with other measures we have already passed. Ms SANDERSON House of Assembly Adelaide Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (10:35): I thank the minister for his words of support for this very important amendment to a bill which he recognises has already passed through both houses of parliament. I would also like to thank the members for Morphett, Hammond and Goyder for their support and contribution to this debate. I reaffirm that surrogacy is already legal in South Australia and has already been extensively debated in this house. This is merely an amendment that was brought to my attention by a constituent who came to my office. After having one child, she had health complications: the calcium had been absorbed out of her bones during her pregnancy and she ended up in a wheelchair for six months and unable to walk without a walking stick for about two years. She also had three blood transfusions. She has an embryo ready. She is unable to conceive naturally and has been told that if she did carry that embryo herself she is unlikely to ever walk again—if not possibly having even worse complications from carrying her own child. Surrogacy is not something people in Australia would choose to do on purpose. I am sure most couples would love to have their own child naturally, and most try to have a child naturally before they seek the help of IVF, and the worst-case scenario is to use surrogacy. So this would be open to only a limited few people. I am not in any way suggesting that we go down the American track of designer babies, where you pick the mother and the father and then you pick the carrier of the child. This is specifically for a man and a woman—it is the mother's egg and the father's sperm—who are, for health reasons, either unable to carry the child to term or who are unable to fall pregnant themselves, or there is risk to the mother's life or the baby's life. They would be the only four situations where they could seek a surrogate. As mentioned by minister Hill, this is also a conscience issue for our side of the house. I urge everyone to really consider this because I think it is very important to many couples who are unable to have their own children. It is already legal; we already have it if the child's life is in danger or if the couple is infertile. That has already passed the house. In every other state that has surrogacy laws—that is Queensland, Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales—they also have the inclusion of when the mother's life is at risk (which I am proposing) and also if the mother cannot carry the pregnancy to term (which, after speaking to minister Hill, was proposed by his office). We are really just bringing it into line with all the other states. Tasmania also has surrogacy; it has a bill on the table of parliament that has not yet been debated, but I am fairly sure that this would be consistent with the rest of Australia. I commend the bill to house. Bill read a second time. Third Reading Third Reading Ms SANDERSON House of Assembly Adelaide Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (10:39): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time and passed.