ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TREATMENT (EQUALITY OF ACCESS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts) (10:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is a relatively straightforward set of amendments to the reproductive legislation. The original legislation has been in place now for some years in South Australia. I amended it a little time ago to modernise it to create greater competition and do a variety of things to, essentially, take a lot of the regulatory burden off those who provide this service to the community.

One of the things that we left in the legislation was the principle that the service was only available to those who are clinically infertile. There was no discrimination in that. It did not discriminate against single people and it did not discriminate against lesbian women: it merely said you had to be clinically infertile. I did contemplate at the time, when I first moved that legislation, broadening the scope of the legislation to allow anybody, really, to access it who wanted to, but I felt at the time that that was perhaps one step too far and I was keen to get through the other arrangements which essentially modernised the legislation and created competition.

My friend and colleague in the other place, Ian Hunter, has been successful in having this set of amendments passed through the other place with a reasonable amount of bipartisan support. Now that that has occurred, I said to him that I would be happy to move these amendments in this place and provide my support for them. Essentially, it is a service that is available; those who access it for non-clinical reasons can do so for whatever reason they choose. As I understand it, they have to pay for it, so there is no burden on the taxpayers—these are private arrangements between clinicians in private practice and members of the public, generally that is the case.

It would mean that—and I suppose this is one of the reasons that the Hon. Ian Hunter wanted to move it—lesbian couples who wanted to access ART who were fertile but not with a male sexual partner could access this technology. There are other ways, of course, that lesbian women have produced children in the past using systems at home, but a number of them have put to Ian and to me the view that this is a safer, more reliable method to do it.

In addition to women in those categories, I believe there would be a number of women who are not lesbians but in fact heterosexual who do not have male partners, do not want to have male partners or are unable to attract male partners who may wish to avail themselves of this legislation. There may be women, for example, who are fearful of men, who have been abused or raped by a man, who want to have children but do not want to have any relationship at all with men, and this would allow them to access this technology even though they are fertile.

I can see a range of people who would be advantaged by this legislation. I do not think there is any place in here for the parliament to have a moral judgement about that. This simply allows a modern technological service to be made available to any woman who wants to take advantage of it. I commend the legislation to the house. I am not sure whether others wish to speak today or what the intention of the house might be, whether we want to adjourn it and have time to think about it—I am happy either way.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (11:03): I wish to speak to the bill and to indicate that I propose that it be adjourned so that members can reflect on the bill and address it again at a later time. I think this is a very important bill for this house. I understand the thinking behind it. I note that it was introduced by a minister as a private member's motion on 15 February in the other place. I have had an opportunity to read some of the debate in the other place. It touches on some very emotive matters that would be deeply and genuinely felt by many members in this place on both sides of the argument.

However, to me, it is largely a bill about relationships. I say that because it is part of a cocktail of measures that have at its destination same-sex marriage, including adoptions, full IVF and all of the legislative supports that go into gay relationships having children, but it also virtually signals an end to any legislative requirement that a child have both a mother and a father. It really signals, if we pass this bill, that the parliament supports the concept that a person, a woman, without having a male partner, without having even engaged in sexual intercourse to create the child, can go out and through an act of technology (funded by the taxpayer probably through the Medicare system) have a child out of wedlock without any father being involved at any time.

I will champion the right of women to determine what they do with their bodies and what happens to them with regard to their reproductive needs until time immemorial, but I am thinking about the child. I am thinking about children who are going to grow up without any idea who their father is. For a lot of members in this place, that will not trouble them, and I read the contributions in the other place and I see that for many it has not troubled them, but it troubles me. I believe that every child has a right to know who is their father, and I believe that every child would hope and would dream that they were the product of a loving relationship between a man and a woman. I respect that many people here do not agree with me, but I think that is where we should be aiming on their behalf.

This bill says to any woman, who for reasons mentioned by my honourable friend earlier, does not want or is not in a position to partner up with a male, that they can decide to just go off and have a baby using IVF—I do not need a father; I do not need a male partner; I do not need a successful relationship; I am just going to have this child; it is all about me; I want to have a child and I am going to have one. I think there is something wrong about that, and I will not be supporting the bill for that reason.

I am also disappointed that this bill has slipped through the legislative process. I sought briefings as the shadow minister for health, and they were not provided. I made multiple contacts with the proponent of the bill; I heard nothing back. It slipped through the upper house I think with indecent haste. As far as I am aware it has not been referred off to a committee, although I do note that an earlier committee dealt with some of these issues, which have been referred to in some of the contributions.

I think it requires careful reflection. I say nothing adverse with regard to same-sex relationships. Many of us in this place, including me, have lots of contact with same-sex couples and consider them to be close friends. It is not about that, in my opinion. I think those relationships deserve to be valued and accepted by the community, but I stop short of same-sex marriage, which I believe is between a man and a woman, and I stop short of legislation that puts the needs of individual adults ahead of the needs of a child, as I think there is something wrong about it.

I urge members to give this their full attention. I assume, because it has been brought to the house as a private member's bill by a minister, that this has been a matter of some disharmony within the government party room. I gather it is a conscience issue within the government party room and that there are members on the government side of the house who strongly oppose it. I encourage them to come down and have their say. I encourage members on this side and on the crossbenches to do likewise, because bit by bit, step by step, we are undermining the fabric of society. We are undermining marriage. We are undermining the family unit as it has traditionally been known. I readily accept that a lot of members do not care about that. They are not distressed or worried about that.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Some members aren't.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: You can have your say in a moment. They have a different view that the family, as it has been known, takes on many forms, and they will argue that a mother who has had a child through IVF is part of that family diaspora and there is nothing wrong with that. I do not necessarily think there is anything wrong with that either; I just do not think it is the ideal outcome for the child.

I am very surprised and disappointed that this bill has not attracted more attention and comment from stakeholders in the community. I am very surprised that I have not heard from church groups on this, not just Christian church groups but I have not heard from Islamic church groups or from anyone on it. I can only assume that there is no interest in it. Similarly, I have heard from only one family association on this matter expressing concerns about it. I have had very little lobbying from the public on it. I can only assume from that that either people do not know that this measure is before us or they do not care, and that in itself is a comment. I would not be surprised if this measure would enjoy majority support out in the community. I would not be surprised about that, but it will not enjoy mine, and the only reason for that is that I do not think it is fair on the children.

I say nothing in the way of criticism about a single mother who desperately seeks to be a parent and who may seek to access what this bill will enable. I understand perfectly why they would want to be a mother—the emotional strain they would have gone through and why they might want to take advantage of this, and I have compassion for that view. I also put my heart out to the many same-sex couples—particularly female same-sex couples—who in a genuine, loving relationship might desperately wish to be parents, and I understand how they would feel but I just do not think it is fair on the child.

To say to them, 'You will never have a father that you've known, you will never be able to speak to your father and that society and this parliament has even determined that you do not need to have one', I think that there is something fundamentally and ethically wrong about that; and for those reasons I struggle with this measure. I do not know whether other members are going to speak today. I would hope that, after a period, we adjourn and just reflect and come back to the house and express our different points of view on it.

However, I think that, at some point, you are confronted with the fundamental question: is this the best thing for children? I am not sure that it is, and for that reason I will struggle to support it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Vlahos.