Family Relationships (Surrogacy) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 June 2015.)

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (10:42): I rise to oppose this bill that we are debating today, noting that it is a conscience vote for the Labor members and I believe for other members of parliament as well. In line with my objections to these bills as they have come to the parliament in my time, from time to time, I object largely to surrogacy anyway, and this is no different. The last time I think we spoke on surrogacy I objected to it on the ground that it was becoming part of the commodification of children, that we are seeing a move within our society where having a child is becoming a right and, in the worst cases, which I admit is not very often, an accessory or something to achieve or something to do.

This is not an easy topic for people. I understand the very strong desire among many couples to have children, which is a good thing—couples having children is a good thing. Sometimes that is not possible and, whilst the surrogacy bill we are debating today is very well intentioned, it is another step down the road as this one allows for the payment of medical expenses and other things, which on the face of it is reasonable in that we are allowing a woman to undertake surrogacy on behalf of a couple because they are unable to have children, and to then be reimbursed for the costs she experiences as a result of the pregnancy which, let's face it, is not a cheap thing. Medical expenses are involved in that. Again, it frees up surrogacy, it frees up the ability for that to happen and it is the next step down the road.

While this bill does not allow for profit and does not allow for someone to make money from having children, that is the next logical step. It will still be difficult to find surrogate mothers, I suspect, especially where there is no profit to be made, only the reimbursement of medical costs, so that people are not out of pocket. That is the next step in allowing people to suddenly become surrogate mothers for the purposes of making money.

What I suspect will happen down the track is that it will still be difficult to find surrogate mothers. It will still not be easy. Certainly, as people delay having children until they get older, the demand for surrogacy will increase because it gets more difficult to fall pregnant, particularly for women, as they get older—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fall? Do you fall pregnant? You become pregnant.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Become pregnant—well, that's true. It's a very deliberate act in this case; that's correct. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for correcting me on that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was musing to myself. You shouldn't be listening.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: No; it's a good point that you make that, in fact, given that there is a difficulty becoming pregnant involved here, it is a very deliberate act to create this pregnancy—it is not 'falling pregnant'.

As women get older, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to become pregnant. It is a fact of our society that women are choosing to wait longer and longer and get older and older before they have children. You can see that in the statistics of the average age of women having their first child, and that will mean that, over time, there will be an increasing demand for surrogacy.

What I suspect that will mean is that the demand for surrogate mothers will outstrip the supply even of people who are prepared to do it altruistically less the cost, so that they do not have to face the cost of surrogacy. The next logical step to make it easier for people to have surrogate children, is to then allow people to make a profit, to be paid for being surrogates.

There will be strong arguments for that because, when women are pregnant, they find they have to take time out from the workforce. There is a loss of earnings, an interruption to a career, and all those other things. It will become arguable that, more than just the medical cost, there is still a cost associated with being a surrogate mother and they should be compensated for that. It is something I find even more objectionable in that, again, we are turning the process of motherhood into a commercial transaction or a commercial process.

It is deeply unfortunate that some couples are not able to have children. I have friends in that category. It is distressing to them and I have a great deal of sympathy for them. Often even the simple act of coming to our house with our kids, at the wrong time, can be difficult. That was particularly true when the kids were younger—not so much now—but it was difficult sometimes just to visit us as friends, so it can be a little bit isolating for people in that position.

I understand that and I accept that it is a difficult position, but I do not think the answer is the process of commodifying motherhood and commodifying this process of surrogacy or childbirth to such an extent that children become part of a commercial process or transaction. I, for one, will not be supporting this bill and I encourage many other members in this house to oppose it as well. I just think it is another step down a road that we really should not be going down. With those words, I look forward to further debate.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (10:49): I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. A number contributed last month, and I thank the member for Newland for placing on the record his personal views on the matter, which I believe are utterly well-intentioned and I understand are strongly felt. I disagree with him on a number of them. Given that the member for Newland has in effect stated the case against the bill as such, without meaning to be personal in any way, I will go through some of the points that he made and explain why I disagree with them.

I remind members that the bill contains four main things that it does. They are, firstly, in relation to creating a state framework for altruistic surrogacy and surrogate register; so that does two of those things. One of the impacts of the state framework for altruistic surrogacy is it describes what the bill defines as 'prescribed international surrogacy agreements'. Whereas at the moment there is a somewhat laissez-faire approach to international surrogacy arrangements for parents seeking to find a surrogate in what are mostly vulnerable women in poorer countries, this bill will in fact restrict the opportunity for that to those where the minister responsible has created what was a prescribed international surrogacy agreement, where there will be an opportunity to protect the welfare of those vulnerable women.

We are obviously relying on the department forming the regulations to deliver some of the detail there, but this would in fact, I think, restrict what the member for Newland described as the commercialisation of childbirth, in that currently the major ill in this area is in those international situations where people are exploited in countries that are poorer than our own. I think that this bill will actually go some way towards restricting that opportunity.

On the other side of the token, it makes it easier for South Australian families who do not have the current capacity to have children to obtain the opportunity through a surrogate through some relaxation of the opportunities in South Australia, but I do not think that it goes any way towards, again as the member for Newland described it, commercialisation of the process. There are three aspects to this. Firstly, the creation of a surrogacy register, an altruistic surrogacy register, where those people who are willing to assist couples who need their support by being a surrogate may register themselves as a surrogate and make it easier for people seeking surrogacy to find a suitable surrogate.

Secondly, it imposes requirements on the commissioning parents to make sure that they cover the costs of medical expenses, counselling and other out-of-pocket expenses. In particular, the third aspect is making counselling for surrogates and their partners, whether that relationship is characterised as marital, de facto or domestic, both before the pregnancy and after the birth—and, I note, after the stillbirth if that is the case, unfortunately—available at no cost to them.

To be clear, we are not creating a new right. People in South Australia are currently able under the laws that were passed in 2009 to obtain surrogacy. This bill does create some administrative changes to how that altruistic surrogacy is able to take place, but it maintains the offence of commercial surrogacy, the 'commodification of children' as described by the member for Newland, or as he also said, 'another step down the road'. I am not sure that that is in fact what is taking place with this bill. I think this bill is a re-alignment of the current law, which makes it ever so slightly easier to have surrogacy take place in South Australia under suitable circumstances, but it provides protections for vulnerable women in other countries through the requirement of the prescribed international surrogacy agreements.

I think that this is a step forward for altruistic surrogacy in South Australia. It is a step forward for families in South Australia who are seeking to be able to experience the joy of raising a family through altruistic surrogacy, and I think that there are suitable restrictions on exploitation of the vulnerable. I urge all members to support the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (10:55): I thank everyone for their support in the second reading. I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.