Ministerial Statement

Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act Review

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (14:07): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Today, I have tabled the report of the review of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 1988. The act specifies that amendments made in 2010 must be evaluated for their operation and effectiveness after five years. These amendments included the replacement of the licensing scheme with a registration scheme for clinics, the dissolution of the SA Council on Reproductive Technology and its code of ethical conduct, the requirement that the welfare of any child born as a consequence of assisted reproductive treatment is to be treated as being of paramount importance and accepted as a fundamental principle in respect of the operation of the act as well as the provisions of ART, allowing for the establishment of a donor conception register and amending eligibility practices to ART services.

The review was undertaken by Dr Sonia Allan, an expert in assisted reproductive treatment who has an international reputation in this field. Dr Allan has consulted extensively with clinics and groups interested in ART to understand their concerns and experiences. She adopted a practical and intellectually rigorous perspective on the regulation of ART. I know that Dr Allan is in the gallery today and I extend my thanks to her for her work.

ART is a complex social topic. A different ethos has prevailed in the past with an emphasis on secrecy and anonymity. Many people now appreciate the importance of the welfare of the child in knowing who they are and what their background is. Dr Allan reports on this and the need for a donor conception register to match up information about donors and donor-conceived people. This is receiving consideration by the government.

It is clear from Dr Allan's report there are some past practices of ART clinics that have led to people being unable to obtain information about their donor. I refer here to the practice of clinics destroying the records of their donors, which has been noted in Dr Allan's report, and ART records being spread across different sites because of changes to clinical ownership and management. The destruction of records has naturally created much uncertainty and distress for some people. I intend to make sure it cannot happen in the future by amending the conditions of registration to prohibit the destruction of ART records, including donor records created prior to 1988.

ART clinics are likely to have a mixed response to the recommendations. While I expect they will welcome some of the regulatory changes, Dr Allan recommends that clinics contribute to the cost of a register if established. I know that Dr Allen met with the clinics today, and I expect more discussions around this to take place. Dr Allan's report provides a blueprint for a system of regulation that recognises that all parties to ART have rights which at times have to be weighed against each other, recognises that clinics sometimes need assistance to operationalise the welfare of the child principle and that clinics should not be subject to an unnecessary regulatory burden.

Dr Allan's report is comprehensive, and I know that there will be pockets of our community with strong opinions on the issues she has raised. I urge a fruitful and respectful discussion in the community as the government considers the recommendations of the report.