Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy Eligibility) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 15 November 2016.)

The CHAIR: Members will recall we had the relationships bill, which we cut into two bills. This is the second part we are dealing with, the parts removed from the original bill: part 2, clause 2; part 5, clause 5(4); part 6, clauses 21 to 27. These are now in what we are calling the Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy Eligibility) Bill 2016.

Schedule 1, part 2, clause 2.

The CHAIR: This is an amendment to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 1988.

Ms CHAPMAN: Before I ask anything I want to say that I will be asking questions as outlined in a document titled Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy Eligibility) Bill 2016, which is also described as 'unofficial and prepared by the House of Assembly, chamber only'. I say that because I believe we are in the rather unique situation where, much as I am grateful to the chamber office of the parliament for attending to this, we do not actually have a bill.

I say that because we have passed a motion in this parliament yesterday to sever sections of the former Relationships Register Bill 2016. I understand why, and we were very supportive of that; I do not think there was any dissent from the house to doing that. I was told at the time that there were no new issued bills that had been prepared by parliamentary counsel to cover that, as we had not passed a motion. Frankly, we never deal with bills until we go to the reading, so we need to have a process where a bill is before us.

We are being asked today to deal with this severed second part of the original bill, which now has this new description, to deal with those components consistent with that motion. We are now about to deal with an aspect of a former bill, which we have all resolved to sever. I am not complaining about that, but I make the point that we should not be dealing with this in committee or anywhere else without a properly prepared bill for that purpose. They are numbered. They have a title.

Whilst we have passed a motion to approve a bill, I do not think there is anything so far that confirms that this is now a legitimate bill called the Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy Eligibility) Bill 2016, because in fact it clearly is not. It actually just reprints bits of an old bill and it is not in proper form. That is a matter that can be taken up with parliamentary counsel or the assistant minister's office to make sure this does not happen again.

We do not sever bills very often. It was quite right for her to put it to the parliament and for us to deal with it separately. It was smart, actually. Perhaps she should have done that in the first place, but I make the point that, for the purpose of anyone who follows this debate in the future, how on earth they are going to deal with an unofficial draft document is beyond me. It should not happen, and it should not happen again. Having said that, I will now look at the front page which reads 'Contents, Part 2, Part 5, Part 6.' I assume you are not going to deal with that at all and it is just going to be assumed to exist in some kind of ether.

The CHAIR: I am advised that we need to agree to the parts severed from the original bill to be this bill. Yesterday, we moved, on this piece of paper which we all remember, to remove these parts, and now we are going to agree to have them here.

Ms CHAPMAN: With respect, I think we have to move to accept parts 2, 5 and 6 of the former bill to now be dealt with.

The CHAIR: That's right. If I have expressed that clumsily, I apologise, but it is what we tried to say. We are back to the question that schedule 1, part 2, clause 2 stand as printed. Does anyone wish to speak to that question?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, Chair. This first amendment at schedule 1, part 2, clause 2(1), after paragraph (b), inserts (ba), which is a condition of registration in regard to the amendment to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 1988. Paragraph (ba) reads:

(ba) a condition prohibiting the person from refusing to provide assisted reproductive treatment to another on the basis only of the other's sexual orientation or gender identity, marital status or religious beliefs.

In regard to that, we have come into committee without second reading speeches directed to this split-off bill. As I said in my contribution on the Register Relationships Bill, I was involved in the Social Development Committee when we dealt with surrogacy several years ago now, which was and is a passion of the Hon. John Dawkins in another place. It certainly was not his intent that same-sex couples at the time have access to any assisted reproductive treatment, and that is how we followed on with the legislation.

At the time, we certainly saw parents—and I am talking about couples, married couples, de facto couples—who could not access surrogacy arrangements in this state who at times were spending $50,000 plus to go to Victoria to access surrogacy arrangements so that they could have children. I am opposed to this clause; it certainly was not part of the original discussion around surrogacy in this state. It talks about prohibitions, about refusing to provide the service. My first question is: in relation to this clause, what penalty is there if a specialist doctor refuses to provide that service?

Ms HILDYARD: If I have heard your quite long question correctly, should that circumstance arise that particular couple's provider would be in breach of the Equal Opportunity Act. As with all Equal Opportunity Act matters, whether they relate to breaches in a workplace, in seeking accommodation, in all sorts of settings, seeking goods and services, etc., there are particular penalties and remedies that the Equal Opportunity Commission sets out in relation to each of those cases of a breach of the Equal Opportunity Act.

Mr PEDERICK: That may be so, but obviously with the surrogacy legislation in place in this state now people can operate quite safely, from what I understand, without providing this service to same-sex couples and not be in breach of the Equal Opportunity Act.

Ms HILDYARD: We are actually talking about assisted reproductive treatment at the moment, not about surrogacy. I am not quite sure if I understand the member's point or question.

Mr PEDERICK: The split-off bill is entitled the Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy Eligibility—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I understand that, but it is a little bit confusing when these bills come in like this. I have been a whip and tried to understand how this place works, but this just adds another degree of difficulty. Again, in regard to our assisted reproductive treatment laws, what is the penalty if someone does not give assisted reproductive treatment to same-sex couples?

Ms HILDYARD: I think I have already answered this question, but perhaps I can provide some information in a different way, from when I used to represent workers in workplaces at the Equal Opportunity Commission. Should their employer or a prospective employer or an ex-employer have been in breach of the Equal Opportunity Act in terms of discrimination in relation to either employing that person or treating them in a particular way in the workplace, what happens in relation to those issues in a workplace would be similar to what happens in relation to these issues here.

That is, that person who was discriminated against in terms of seeking assisted reproductive treatment would make a complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission. The commission would hear that complaint, it would talk to the provider and it would make a determination about how it deals with that particular breach. It would go to that body to hear that matter and make a determination about how it is dealt with.

Mr PEDERICK: What is the legislation now around people's sexual orientation or gender identity, marital status or religious beliefs in relation to same-sex couples receiving assisted reproductive treatment under the current act?

Ms HILDYARD: The current situation is that assisted reproductive treatment is not considered a service for the purposes of the Equal Opportunity Act. If you go to the next clause in the bill we are dealing with, you will see that, through this bill, we are inserting provisions to make sure that, when a person seeks assisted reproductive treatment services, under the Equal Opportunity Act they cannot be discriminated against in seeking the provision of those services as a result of their sex or gender identity. The very next clause actually changes that so that it is covered.

Mr PEDERICK: You can tell me if I am wrong, and I am happy to be told that I am wrong, but I believe that goes against what you said earlier, when you said that it was already going to be a breach of the Equal Opportunity Act, but it is only in breach because currently it would not be in breach of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 1988 at the moment and would only be in breach if this Equal Opportunity Act amendment went through. For information of the house, can you state for me what people at the moment can use assisted reproductive treatment under the current act?

Ms HILDYARD: First of all, member for Hammond, just to make it clear, as I said in my last answer, this bill ensures that a person seeking assisted reproductive treatment services will now be covered by the Equal Opportunity Act should discrimination occur.

Mr Pederick: Not yet, though.

Ms HILDYARD: Will be, and that is what I am trying to distinguish. I am trying to make that really clear for you. Also, if I understand the second part of your question, currently a woman who is medically infertile can seek assisted reproductive treatment services. With this bill, we are changing that definition so that a woman who, in their circumstances, is unlikely to become pregnant is able to seek reproductive treatment services. It is that difference between medically infertile and a person who, in their circumstances, is unlikely to become pregnant. That is the difference.

Mr PEDERICK: I am not trying to be hard to get on with, but I believe that this is an attempt to amend significant legislation. I must say that, in regard to surrogacy, we had a social development inquiry into it, so it is not something that we should deal with in five minutes.

Ms Hildyard: We've got all night.

Mr PEDERICK: That's right, and I am happy to stay. Is it restricted to de facto couples, married couples? Can single women access it? I want to have the full gamut of people who can access assisted reproductive treatment at the moment so that the committee can fully understand the changes you are making here.

Ms HILDYARD: The current act, if that is your question, only talks about a woman who is infertile. That is the current act.

Mr KNOLL: I want to clarify a few things for the house as to how we got here. Certainly, at least on my side of the aisle, a lot of members are struggling to understand how we got here with this separate piece of legislation.

First, I want to say that the Relationships Register Bill was put to parliament and created a process whereby we can register relationships that are outside the Marriage Act and also do some other things around death certificates and recognising overseas marriages of various forms, and what those forms are will be clarified through the regulations. The original bill went on to do a whole series of other things.

The reason I think this parliament is confused is that, when one wants to understand the background of a bill, one reads the second reading speech. I have read through the second reading speech a number of times now and everything that the second reading speech did in the beginning was talk about the part of the Relationships Register Bill that we split off earlier and voted on yesterday.

With all these other changes to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act, the Equal Opportunity Act, the Family Relationships Act and also in relation to surrogacy (which is now packaged up in a thing called the Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy Eligibility) Bill), there is not really mention, bar one small reference to some of the recommendations of the South Australian Law Reform Institute—it says that the reporting encapsulates SALRI's review of equal recognition of relationships and parenting rights and surrogacy in South Australia, and that is the only reference I can find—to this now new bill which has been hived off.

The cynic in me would suggest that, although these changes are explained in the explanation of clauses, those of us who are not lawyers in the room sometimes struggle to understand what they mean. Certainly, the member for Hammond's questioning I think says that some of us are looking for plain answers as opposed to some of the legalistic language that is used in bills and legislation. It is difficult for this house to understand what this next bill seeks to do. This has not been fleshed out. The other issue is that, because the bill was split off in committee, we do not have second reading speeches to get better and deeper understandings of where things are.

Again, I do not want to impute motive, but the fact that these two bills were split suggests to me that some more controversial things were trying to be hidden in what I think was a very noble part of the original Relationships Register Bill. The Relationships Register Bill passed without dissent in this house, and I think that is testament to good progressive change and good forward-thinking legislation that is sensible, it is common sense and it helps to give recognition to those who deserve recognition.

This new Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy Eligibility) Bill in its current form was only presented to members today. Also, given that, there is basically no mention in the second reading speech by the member for Reynell about the fact that there have not been second reading speeches so that members can attempt to more deeply understand the totality of changes in this bill. I think we are now at a very difficult stage.

Again, this is made much more difficult by the fact that this is a conscience vote. It means that we have a breakdown of the party structure, as we saw in one of the previous votes. Some of them are tight, some of them are overwhelming and some of them are ridiculously overwhelming. We are now in a situation where I think we are testing the ability of the house to appropriately deal with legislation. For those reasons, I will certainly be opposing the third reading of this bill in its entirety because we need time to go back to look at this bill much more deeply and in its entirety, and given that not much information was given at the second reading. I do struggle when—

The CHAIR: This is a committee, so if you have a question on the clause—

Ms Hildyard: I am happy to address it.

The CHAIR: Well, let's hear the question.

Mr KNOLL: Would the member for Reynell like to explain?

Ms HILDYARD: Absolutely, I would love to explain. Thank you very much, member for Schubert. I absolutely reject the point that we have not provided adequate information about both parts of the now split bill. The original bill, with both the relationships register part and this part, was circulated to all members of parliament a number of months ago. We invited all members of parliament to, from memory, three separate briefings, and the member for Schubert was absolutely one of the most active and lively participants in those briefings, asking several questions and requesting further information.

So, to say that there has not been enough information provided about the content of this bill I think is just nonsense, frankly. At each of those briefings, my staff and I provided very detailed written briefings to accompany what was being spoken about. We also made several offers to speak further with parliamentarians and to answer any of their questions. I just wanted to make those points. I think we had very lively discussions in those briefings.

It was following those briefings and a number of questions that came up during the briefings that we made the decision to split the bill. Whilst the original bill was developed as a result of the SA Law Reform Institute's report on relationships and parentage/surrogacy issues—it certainly covered all of those issues—when we looked at the bill further through extensive consultation with members of parliament, it became really clear that there were different questions and different issues being raised about each part of those bills. Hence, we made the decision to split them.

I think that was a good decision because there were certainly very different conversations happening about each set of issues. Again, to propose that there was not adequate information provided is quite unfair. As I said, I welcomed the member for Schubert's very active participation at those briefings, his subsequent questions, and also his acceptance of the written material about these issues provided to him a couple of months ago.

The CHAIR: Member for Adelaide, you have a question about the content of the bill?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes, about the content of the bill and how it works. I believe a couple has to be in a 'registered relationship', the definition of which was only passed yesterday. Is that correct?

Ms HILDYARD: What for? To access what? Assisted reproductive treatment or surrogacy?

Ms SANDERSON: Both.

Ms HILDYARD: There are quite different answers in relation to assisted reproductive treatment and who it refers to and the surrogacy part of the bill. In terms of access to assisted reproductive treatment, that speaks only about a woman being able to receive assisted reproductive treatment. In relation to accessing or applying for a surrogacy agreement, the bill talks about people who are in a registered relationship, but it also talks about a couple who are in a qualifying relationship. That sets out things like a couple who are in a marriage or a domestic partnership.

I take your point about the registered relationship part being approved yesterday—that was part of the whole bill—but it also talks about a couple who are in a qualifying relationship. I think you do have to separate the issues in terms of who assisted reproductive treatment refers to, and who surrogacy refers to. The other part in relation to surrogacy is that this new bill talks about single parents being able to commission a surrogacy agreement. However, my understanding is that there are some amendments to that aspect of this bill that we will probably hear shortly.

Ms SANDERSON: The qualifying relationship we approved yesterday was in relation to adoption, and that is five years that you have to be in a qualifying relationship. How long does a couple in a registered relationship need to have been together? If IVF applies just to a woman, then would that be a single woman, or does that woman need to be in a marriage, a domestic relationship, or a qualifying relationship as well, and for how long?

Ms HILDYARD: The assisted reproductive treatment part of the bill simply refers to a woman being able to access assisted reproductive treatment. In relation to a registered relationship and any qualifying period (this is what we debated yesterday), a registered relationship is designed to give people similar rights to register their relationship, and be afforded particular rights in relation to that registration, as you might should you enter into a marriage. For instance, in registering a relationship on what we set up yesterday, effectively, on the South Australian relationships register, just like in the case of a marriage you would have to give 28 days' notice of the intention to register your relationship, and just like a marriage a registered relationship has no qualifying period. Somebody could go out and meet somebody this evening.

Mr Marshall: Don't look at me when you say that.

Ms HILDYARD: I was looking at you. I did not know which one of you to look at, and I went for you, Steven. For example, the leader could go out this evening and meet somebody and decide that that is the person he either wants to marry or register a relationship with, and tomorrow he could give 28 days' notice that he wants to register the relationship or he wants to marry that person.

Mr PEDERICK: I assume we are dealing with the whole of part 2, clause 2, and all the subclauses?

The CHAIR: Yes. Unfortunately, we have not moved very far.

Mr PEDERICK: That is fine; I have plenty of time. In regard to section 9(c), you are going to delete subparagraphs (i) and (ii). I will quote them:

(i) if a woman who would be the mother of any child born as a consequence of the assisted reproductive treatment is, or appears to be, infertile;

(ii) if a man who is living with a woman (on a genuine domestic basis as her husband) who would be the mother of any child born as a consequence of the assisted reproductive treatment is, or appears to be, infertile;

I would like the assistant minister to explain to me—and this gets down to the next clause, but I want to talk about it under assisted reproductive treatment as well, and it has to flow into surrogacy under the arrangement I am going to give now—if two gay men want to have a child, what are their arrangements? Do they have to find a surrogate? What are we dealing with here?

Ms HILDYARD: I wonder whether it is better to deal with that particular question when we talk about surrogacy because your question actually relates to the surrogacy part of the bill rather than to the assisted reproductive treatment part of the bill. I think it may be neater to talk about it then with that question, unless you want to move on past this section.

Mr PEDERICK: I am asking that question because the conditions of registration, and if this turns into law, there will be—

Ms HILDYARD: For assisted reproductive treatment.

Mr PEDERICK: That is right. The clause states:

a condition prohibiting the person from refusing to provide assisted reproductive treatment to another on the basis only of the other's sexual orientation or gender identity, marital status or religious beliefs.

If this is going to be so broad (I certainly understand that blokes cannot have babies, so I am making that really simple). All I am saying, and call me a farm boy from Coomandook—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Never do that.

Mr PEDERICK: No, never do that.

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr PEDERICK: This is all-encompassing as it is worded. It encompasses people according to their sexual orientation or gender identity and marital status, but I know the practical application will not work with two gay men.

Ms HILDYARD: What that subclause is speaking about is the provider of assisted reproductive treatment services. The purpose of that subclause is to stop providers from discriminating against people in accessing assisted reproductive treatment services.

Mr PEDERICK: That is what I just said.

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, so I am not sure what your question is. If the question is: is that what we are doing? yes, we are stopping providers of those services from discriminating against people on the basis of those particular characteristics, attributes and criteria that are set out in that clause. That clause is very similar to clauses you would find in a raft of legislation that prohibits discrimination against people, as I said before, whether that is in their workplace, in the provision of goods and services, in seeking accommodation, in trade, etc. I hope that clarifies your question.

Ms SANDERSON: My question is whether this would be paid for by Medicare, whether people pay for it themselves and whether any cost estimates have been done on the effect of this bill.

Ms HILDYARD: I presume that you are talking about accessing assisted reproductive treatment. My understanding is that generally it is a very hefty bill for those people who seek that kind of treatment, but I would have to clarify whether there is any public funding in relation to the provision of services. I do know, certainly from friends and many people I know who have accessed assisted reproductive treatment, that it is a very costly process. Whether there is any public provision of funding, I can check that for you and come back to you.

Schedule 1, part 2, clause 2 passed.

Schedule 1, part 5, clause 5(4)

Ms CHAPMAN: Can the assistant minister explain why we actually need this? We come back to this question of 'just to make it absolutely clear'. I have made it clear in this house before that I do not agree with that. Is there some piece of common law, case law or the like that has actually threatened the interpretation of this to justify its determination?

Ms HILDYARD: Currently in the Equal Opportunity Act, the provision of assisted reproductive treatment services is expressly exempt in terms of allowing discrimination against somebody who seeks those services. Given the changes we are making in this bill, we did think it was necessary to make sure that providers cannot discriminate against people on the basis of their sex or gender identity when they seek assisted reproductive treatment services.

Ms CHAPMAN: Again, what we are doing is deleting subsection (2) anyway which is the prohibition. Therefore, we have got rid of it. We do not need to have another statement replacing it that says 'to be absolutely clear' or, in this case, 'however, to avoid doubt'. This is lazy drafting at best and, frankly, if we wanted to avoid doubt on everything, we would just have this in every clause. It is just not really sensible law-making, in my view, and will only add to confusion. Why can we not just delete subsection (2) and not add this in?

Ms HILDYARD: What we are attempting to do is amend the definition of service to which ART is currently exempt. It is trying to provide some cover. I do take your point, but that is what we are trying to do in this clause.

Ms CHAPMAN: On the question of insurable cost for this treatment, this raises the question of cost overall. I have Repromed in my electorate. It is one of the many services—not the only one but obviously a premier service in South Australia—that provide fertility treatment. My understanding is that there is quite a significant cost for access to services for fertility purposes, that is, IVF. The amount is in the thousands, in fact.

The prospective parents have to go through the physical process, which is sometimes painful for them, especially if the fertilised egg does not hold or develop and they may have to go through it multiple times. It is obviously a roller-coaster of hopeful expectation with dashed hopes and sometimes, of course, a wonderful outcome.

I am not certain but I understand that at present some cost associated with this can be claimed on health insurance. Is there any impediment under our federal laws to a same-sex couple, who will now be able to access this process, in respect of the insurable cover for this cost?

Ms HILDYARD: I would have to take that question on notice and find out how federal law interacts with that particular provision.

Ms CHAPMAN: Again, we are dealing with the fertility component of a service that has been removed, and I am dealing with it under part 5. In respect of the treatment itself, is there any proposed regulation to go with this to deal with assisted insemination and assisted reproductive treatment, or is that simply going to rely on the definitions within the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 1988?

Ms HILDYARD: SALRI did not go further than what is currently in that act, so there certainly has not been a discussion about that intention. I think you make a very good point about what could be discussed in the future.

Schedule 1, part 5, clause 5(4) passed.

Schedule 1, part 6.

Clauses 21 and 22 passed.

Clause 23.

Mr ODENWALDER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Odenwalder–1]—

Schedule 1, Part 6, clause 23 [clause 23(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

I am advised that this is a test clause. If it fails my other amendments are consequential; if the first amendment fails, the other amendments fail consequentially.

Essentially, this amendment is an attempt to alter the bill so that it achieves what I think are its primary aims. I will not go on about it, but essentially it removes references to single people of any gender or persuasion being able to access surrogacy. This is in no way a reflection on single parents, of course; I have been a single parent myself, but generally I do not think it is people's first choice as to their family arrangements.

Be that as it may, I want to be clear that I see this bill as trying to achieve some loosely related things. To my mind at least, I see that there is a hierarchy of things this bill is trying to achieve, and my fear is that in our attempt to push through a bill which, as some people have pointed out, puts together some things which at first sight do not quite sit together, we will lose some important reforms aimed at addressing some unnecessary discrimination. This amendment and the consequential amendments take out references to single people accessing surrogacy.

To my mind, at the top of the hierarchy I am talking about those couples, of any gender or sexual orientation, who want to start a family but who, for whatever reason, cannot. In the first instance, I am specifically thinking of a lesbian couple accessing IVF. We all know of the ridiculous lengths they have to go to now, the cost involved in travelling to, generally, Victoria or New South Wales to access these things. For me, that is the main or primary aim of this bill, not discounting the important reforms below that in the hierarchy.

These amendments are an attempt to see that we do not lose some good reforms in pursuit of other reforms for which there may be less demand. My sincerest intention with these amendments is to see this bill pass, that is my sincere intention, and so approach this issue in a more incremental fashion. There may be bills later, and I may vote for them, but I want to approach it in a more incremental, rather than have an all or nothing approach that could leave us with nothing. I urge members to vote for my amendment—

The CHAIR: Your amendment amends clause 23.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, so I urge you to vote for amendment No. 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: If subclause (2) of clause 23 is deleted, thus removing the opportunity for a single parent to commission a prescribed international surrogacy agreement, you would be left back with commissioning parents. As the member says, the purpose of this is to exclude the right for a single person, being a single parent, going through a surrogacy process as a commissioning parent. They could not commit a couple from Thailand, for example, to provide for them a child for the purposes of them acquiring the legal parentage of that child, as I understand it.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, I think so. They are not in a qualifying relationship.

Ms CHAPMAN: A commissioning parent who was single at the time of entering into a contract for surrogacy could be in a circumstance where they had lost their partner through death, they had another child, or they had lost the fertilised eggs that were sitting in the Flinders Medical Centre and died when we had a blackout recently. Now we are hearing that some of those parents are of course concerned because they are now of an age when they are unlikely to be able to have a healthy fertilised egg again. There are those sorts of circumstances.

It is a bit like saying that no child could ever be terminated in vitro, yet Ireland was asked how you would deal with a young woman who was raped or was pregnant as a result of incest. Should she be forced to have a child? There are clearly circumstances. Are there any circumstances in which you consider it would be reasonable for a single parent to be able to enter into a contract for a surrogate child?

Mr ODENWALDER: Personally, yes, I do think there would be circumstances where that would be reasonable but, for the purposes of passing this bill, the amendments I am making, as far as I am aware—and I can be corrected by the sponsors of the bill—revert back, in this instance, to the current situation. The people you refer to do not have that opportunity now. Subsequent bills could address that, but not this one.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: I am seeking some clarification because I understand there has been some agreement that these amendments will be supported on the basis of support for the whole bill. I think the member for Little Para has made it clear that—

Mr Pederick: No-one has cut a deal with me.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: No? Okay, good. I just wanted to clarify that issue. I would like a little bit more information on why we should discriminate against single people. I know a number of single people who would be offended by the fact that they have been taken out of what I consider to be a series of equal opportunity pieces of legislation that we have been dealing with. All of a sudden, we are now going to cut them out of it because they are single. I just think this does not make sense of the legislation that we are trying to put through.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am not aware of any formal agreement, but I completely understand what you are saying. As I said in my earlier remarks, my sincere intention is to see this bill passed. I am concerned that some very important reforms will be lost in the pursuit of a whole suite of reforms which could be pursued individually. We all know, and people on the other side have pointed out, that this bill has come to us in quite an unusual fashion. That was the reason it was split in the first place—because there were things that were completely incongruous. I think that it could be separated out again. I am perfectly happy to deal with this at another time and perhaps would vote for it, but I think the amendment is in the interest of passing some of those other important reforms.

Ayes 35

Noes 8

Majority 27

Mr ODENWALDER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Odenwalder–1]—

Schedule 1, Part 6, clause 23 [clause 23(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 17:58 to 19:31.