Surrogacy Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 11 September 2019.)

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: We have a total of 32 clauses. There are a number of schedules and amendments so we will work our way through them. Are there any questions on clause 1? No.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Ms LUETHEN: I will not be proceeding with the amendments in [Luethen-1].

Clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

New clause 5A.

Ms LUETHEN: I will not be proceeding with the amendments in [Luethen-2].

Ms STINSON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Stinson–1]—

Page 5, after line 38—Insert:

5A—Central assessment unit may conduct working with children check

Despite a provision of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016, or the provisions of any instrument or agreement to the contrary, the central assessment unit may conduct a working with children check under the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 on the application of a person who wishes to be a party to a lawful surrogacy agreement (whether or not the person will or will not be working with children within the meaning of that Act).

This amendment was filed this morning, but I will highlight to the committee that it is identical to the amendment that was just withdrawn by the member for King. I will start by commending the member for King for that amendment. Although this is a conscience vote, many of us on this side of the house individually, separately, believe that this is an improvement to the bill. Many of us support, and certainly I support, this amendment.

The amendment ensures that, despite a provision of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 or the provisions of any instrument or agreement to the contrary, the central assessment unit may conduct a working with children check under that act on the application of a person who wishes to be a party to a lawful surrogacy agreement whether or not that person will work with children within the meaning of the act. Essentially, it allows the central assessment unit to conduct working with children checks for the purpose of a surrogacy agreement. We believe that is an improvement.

While in the current bill there is no prerequisite as far as criminal history or allegations go, I am aware that there may be a proposal put forward for police checks, but I will leave that for others to discuss. I believe that a working with children check is a much stronger measure. It certainly is a much stronger and more thorough mechanism than a police check. For those not familiar, a police check simply records convictions, so there must have been a charge and conviction at a court for it to come up on a national police check.

The difference is that a working with children check picks up a much broader range of allegations, if you like. It searches databases for charges that are pending, as well as allegations, and that includes things like notifications that have been made through CARL (the Child Abuse Report Line), as well as a number of other things.

We believe that that much higher standard of checking is important. We are talking about bringing a new life into the world. We are talking about bringing a vulnerable child into the world and placing them, ultimately, with someone who is not their biological parent. That requires a high level of rigour and a high level of checking that that child will be safe and that that child's safety can be assured to the greatest degree possible. Nothing is perfect, but we believe that a working with children check would go quite some way to ensuring the safety of that child in these circumstances.

At the moment, we obviously require working with children checks for anyone working with children, anyone volunteering with children and, indeed, people who foster children and even kinship care as well. Ultimately, that can also flow into adoption, although we do not do a great number of adoptions in this state at the moment. But, if someone has been a foster or kinship carer before and then moves to adoption, they would have been required to have a working with children check.

I thank the Attorney for her time and the time of her staff in informing me about the role of the intergovernmental agreements. I understand that there are some concerns that this amendment may cut across intergovernmental agreements that exist that relate to the operations of the central assessment unit. I absolutely take those on board. The view that I take is that we should be looking to the interests of the children first rather than what might be convenient or swift for us to achieve.

The will of the parliament should be the thing that is important and the will of the parliament should then be reflected by the actions of government in terms of either renegotiating or altering any agreements that may make the operation of such a clause difficult or, indeed, some other remedy should be put forward that achieves this aim of applying a working with children check through some other means. Certainly, I would support inserting this higher standard of the working with children check—and I believe others do as well—rather than a police check or, indeed, having no form of check whatsoever.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I indicate that I oppose this proposal. I do not in any way doubt the intent of this amendment, as indicated by the mover, that we need to secure the highest possible protection for any child who is going to be born into a relationship for which we are seeking court approval, that the legislation we make around that must consider that and that we must do everything we can to ensure that is the case. At the moment, the bill does not make provision for any kind of historical check in relation to either the surrogates or the receiving parents.

Certainly the debate has already canvassed a number of options and one of those options is to progress along the lines of this process. I am going to set out why again that is problematic. The reason for that is that I need to inform the parliament of the consequences of passing a piece of legislation that would frustrate the implementation of legislation and raise the question of whether that is something that may be the motive not necessarily of the mover but of other members of the house who do not like this legislation at all.

The reason I do that and raise that possibility is that there has been a very clear indication of what I am about to repeat—of the danger in progressing this model of perceived protection or enhancing the protections when considering both the validity and approval of these agreements. I am going to outline them again because, although this information has been provided to some members, it has not been provided to all.

Firstly, the South Australian Law Reform Institute considered this issue because it had been considered and included, but not in this form, as a protective aspect in Victoria. It had been considered, they report to us, in New South Wales and declined. But that does not mean that in our jurisdiction we do not have another look at it. The proposal incorporated in this amendment indicates (for members following this) the utilisation of the central assessment unit who undertakes the working with children check. That is an entity which operates, has its genesis of capacity in the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 and is able to be populated with information essentially arising out of the intergovernmental agreement. That is a COAG agreement, a copy of which has been provided to the mover of the motion, that facilitates the exchange of information.

Number one, the COAG intergovernmental agreement sits around the whole scheme that provides for the exchange of information between jurisdictions to facilitate the provision of the check for the purposes of working with children. That is the first aspect. That is important to remember because it is confined under the terms of that agreement for its purposes in working with children. The scheme is not designed or provided to facilitate checks for the purposes of surrogacy or any other domestic purpose. So it is confined in that way. That is the thing we are presented with at the moment.

The intergovernmental agreement provides that jurisdictions will only use the expanded criminal history checks for the purposes of working with children checks. Police can only release this information for that purpose and the screening unit can only use it for that purpose. So we have two aspects that are, I think, crystal clear—that is, that the intergovernmental agreement is the body that says you can utilise this information for working with children checks. It does not make any provision for what we are doing here or in any other domestic purpose. Secondly, the police can only release that information for that purpose and the screening unit can only use it for that purpose, so any other purpose would be outside that agreement, as this information—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —you can have a chance to speak—is the basis of the working with children check. The screen would not be effective without it. In other words, the passage of this amendment in this bill could be introduced, but the unit that is to employ this role of providing this service in surrogacy agreements would not be able to provide it. Even the police would not be able to make provision of that information.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I hear members call out to say, 'Well, let's just amend the act.' Of course, the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 is an act that can be changed. The parliament can consider that. They can open up that act and they can consider that. Secondly, COAG members can go back and reconsider those agreements at the national level and they can rewrite those.

I highlight to the parliament, though, that this arrangement, if it is imposed, would sabotage the effect of the bill progressing at this point. It may take months or years to actually go through that process. Nevertheless, the parliament in the end might say, 'Well, this is what we want. We want to have a standard which is the same as working with children checks and not police checks to be able to advance the surrogacy agreement process that would be enforceable under the model of this legislation.'

I also make the point, leaving aside the legality of this and whether this in fact is an attempt to frustrate the surrogacy process in any event—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: That is outrageous!

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Members might recall that in the course of the—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Others will have the opportunity to speak.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You will have a chance to speak.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I ask that that be withdrawn.

The CHAIR: There's a point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I find that personally offensive.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, thank you; I take your point of order. So you found whatever it was that the Attorney said offensive?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, and I ask her to withdraw it.

The CHAIR: Attorney, given that we are in the very early stages of this committee and we have a long way to go, I might ask you to withdraw that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My statement was, to be clear what I said, that in the event—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Are you withdrawing or not?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just going to identify what I am withdrawing because I am going to say something else. In the event that it is a motive of any of the members in relation to this debate to deliberately do so—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is unsatisfactory, Chair.

The CHAIR: So, member for Lee—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I am just repeating what I said.

The CHAIR: Attorney, could you—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Yes, and that is the offence to which we are taking exception. That is offensive.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, settle down! I have asked the Attorney to take her seat. I have identified, I think, what you have taken offence to. Am I right?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

The CHAIR: So I do ask the Attorney to withdraw.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Having identified it, I withdraw it.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And I make the point that, in relation to this bill, the implementation of it, if it goes through to become an act, would not be able to progress while there is a conflict not only in the COAG agreement but also in relation to the disclosure of information and the opportunity for the central assessment unit to provide that information, let alone the police providing it, in breach of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016. We would need to obviously address that. It would have a direct consequence of not allowing this legislation to progress.

The other matter, I suppose, is the principle of whether in fact we do need to have checks at all. As members would know, the agreement that we are seeking to be approved would only be lawful if a number of criteria are met in respect of the surrogate mother. Already in this bill they include that the surrogate mother must be over 25 years of age, not have impaired decision-making capacity, be an Australian citizen or permanent resident, must not be pregnant at the time of the agreement and must undergo counselling.

The amendments before us are as we have described. It is important to remember that to impose a test to be obtained and disclosed to any court making this assessment is arguably discriminatory, as it is not a requirement for any other reproductive treatment in South Australia. I want to repeat that: it is not a requirement for any other reproductive treatment in South Australia.

Criminal checks are required to access reproductive treatment in Victoria, but it has been criticised as being discriminatory, intrusive and insulting. Again, I refer members back to the SALRI report, which has been tabled and available for consideration since late last year and, as I think I have also mentioned, has been rejected as an option in the 2018 New South Wales review of their surrogacy legislation.

I think it is an important principle to consider if we as a parliament are going to impose on prospective parents—whether they are planning to have a baby within the envelope of their lawful marriage, through adoption or through IVF treatment, or whether they are going to go and secure through any of those methods a child from overseas—the need to look at the threshold question of whether we should be imposing a check, including consideration of a working with children check, if I can paraphrase it, as is the subject of this amendment that is proposed. I think we need to have that discussion.

I remind members that we are proposing in this legislation a procedure that will allow South Australians who are resident here to seek a lawful and enforceable approval of an agreement to have a surrogate child. If anyone in the parliament thinks that that is an easy process, let me just point out some easier options. Number one, you partner with or marry someone who is fertile and able to have a child. Let me tell you, that is a lot easier and quicker than going through this proposed process. Number two, you consider adoption of a child that is already born, either in Australia or from overseas. Thirdly, if it is available, if there is an infertility issue in relation to one of the parties, you access donor egg or sperm and/or IVF treatment.

It is pretty obvious that there is only going to be a fairly small group of people, as has been demonstrated in other states, who would go through such a process to have a child if they did not have to. If they were in some way motivated in a more sinister way to think, 'I am going to go along and get a surrogate and have babies produced through a surrogacy agreement because I want to in some way carry out my paedophilic interests in relation to that child or support an international program for photographing of children,' then I can tell you there are a lot of other quicker and easier ways to have a child than to go through this process.

I think we should start from the basis that we are presenting a proposal in this bill that is designed to enable South Australians to safely apply for a process within the envelope of maintaining commercial surrogacy as illegal, to enable them to progress that here and not go overseas, exploit women, exploit others, which is currently occurring. We know that; we only have to look at television screens to tell us about that. If you have missed those for some reason, if you have not identified those, please, I urge you to go back and look at the South Australian Law Reform Institute's very comprehensive report, which tells us in enormous detail what is already happening.

The description of what happens in Ukraine I think is reprehensible. To think that passports can be issued and a baby of weeks old is leaving the country in the arms of a non-Ukraine national, with no security for the surrogate mother in those circumstances, is shameful. To not fix up our structure here in South Australia, which is currently there but effectively impractical to implement, is appalling.

If we do not deal with this issue in a timely manner, more in this category will continue to go overseas to exploit those circumstances, and I think that is an unconscionable position for this parliament to remain in, so I cannot support the amendment. I have had discussions with the member for Badcoe to explain to her the legal impediments we have to this, but I think there are other measures at least that have been proposed that we have notice of now that in a mandatory way will provide for police checks. I will come to speak on that in a moment.

It is not the same. I accept that, but it will provide some relief, I would hope, to those who might be concerned that somebody with a prurient interest, other than to have a happy child in their household, exploits it to use that child for some mischievous purpose. Sadly, there are many other ways that that can be done. Frankly, there are a lot of children out there who are vulnerable to that and, sadly, we have to spend a lot of energy, which we should, in protecting them. These are children who have been born of families and for whatever reason have not been protected either by their parents or guardians or the state. Certainly, those children pay the price, but as a community we are paying the price.

In short, we have complex interjurisdictional issues that support the scheme that would make the proposal for parties to provide a working with children check problematic, even with the passage of amendments to the state act. Ultimately, if it is the will of the parliament to go down this course, I would strongly urge the parliament to consider alternate proposals that would not be frustrated by the impediments that I have outlined.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I welcome the opportunity to be able to address the house regarding this important amendment from the member for Badcoe. Let me start by acknowledging that there is some good intent within this piece of legislation that I think is worthy of my support and, I hope, the parliament's support. Having said that, as we contemplate this important amendment in the member for Badcoe's name, we contemplate the essential question that sits at the heart of what I think should govern all our judgement here in regard to legislation such as this and other pieces that we may face in the future, and that is the interests and the welfare of children. That must be paramount, particularly for those children who are currently voiceless—those who are yet to be born.

When I contemplate our unequivocal fundamental obligation in that regard, it strikes me that the amendment in the member for Badcoe's name is utterly rational and reasonable. I really find it rather peculiar that the Attorney-General would cite an intergovernmental agreement as somehow an impediment to supporting an amendment that achieves that solemn obligation we all have to protect the interests of the child.

I would like to acknowledge the member for King, who I think originally raised these issues. I thought the amendment in the member for King's name was meritorious and worthy of support. It is disappointing that the member for King withdrew that amendment, but I would like to thank the member for Badcoe for moving this amendment. I certainly cannot in good conscience allow a situation where we see a piece of legislation pass that has not done absolutely everything it possibly can to ensure that the welfare of a child is protected from people we know exist within our community that have nefarious motives. We must do everything that is within our power, and allowing a working with children check to occur in this instance for intending parents is such an obvious first step.

It is worthwhile the parliament contemplating the distinction between a police check and a working with children check when we contemplate the amendments that are before us. A working with children check clearly provides a higher test, a higher standard. It looks into things that are not able to be accessed or achieved or realised through a police check—for instance, whether or not a trial is underway regarding the subject of the test, whether or not that individual has ever been laid with charges regarding sex offences or child sex offences, whether or not there have ever been any allegations made through the child abuse hotline.

The parliament would be well aware that there are examples of people in our community who commit crimes against children of a sexual nature who do not get caught or who are not successfully prosecuted in a criminal court. Why would we ever want to see a circumstance where someone who has not been successfully convicted but may well have committed a crime against a child be able to get access to a child in an absolute way? That is an appalling situation and an absurd proposition, which is why a working with children check should apply.

The Attorney well knows that we are able to change intergovernmental agreements. They are frequently changed. There is a process that provides for that. They are not somehow a set of rules that are cast in stone that can never be changed. We have systems within COAG, we have ministerial councils, to address these very legitimate issues. There is, I dare say, a number of other jurisdictions that, when their attention is drawn to this issue, would be more than happy to accommodate the eminently reasonable proposition that an intending parent has a working with children check prior to becoming one under this surrogacy arrangement. That would be an eminently reasonable proposition and I would be astounded if other jurisdictions would not support it.

Yes, it might require a degree of additional work from the Attorney, but that is her job. She gets to sit around those tables and advocate for that change. I do not imagine that a change as elementary, as basic and as obvious as that would need a herculean effort to achieve. The member for Badcoe's amendment is worthy of this parliament's support by all of us who want to achieve the objective of doing everything within our power to keep children in our state safe.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Chair, can I clarify who I am actually allowed to ask questions to?

The CHAIR: The mover, who is the member for Badcoe.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: In seeking to filter through the different amendments, it seems in my mind that there are three main differences between amendment No. 3 of the member for King and the current amendment from the member for Badcoe that we are seeking to unpack here. One difference is the fact that there is a difference between a working with children check and a criminal history report; the second relates to amendment No. 2 around the fact that we are creating an offence, with the phrase 'each intended parent must not be a prohibited person under the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act'; and then No. 3 talks about disclosure of the check—in this case it is the working with children check—to the intending parents, with again a difference being that the Badcoe amendments speak to disclosure to a third party of that information as opposed to just the intending parent, which is there under the member for King's amendment.

I am just seeking to understand what is offending COAG principles here. Is it the difference between the two different types of checks, or is it the disclosure of private information to a third party that is causing the consternation?

Ms STINSON: The member raises a few different things there, so I will work through the latter two first and then come back to the main one. The member talked about his understanding that there would be a new offence committed in the second part of the amendment; that is not the case. Under the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016, a person can apply for a working with children check, and that can be denied and no reason is necessarily given for that.

There is also a separate process where a proactive prohibition can be declared on a person. That reference that talks about not being a prohibited person under that act is a declaration that exists already in the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act, so it is not seeking to create a new offence or a new category of person at all: it refers to what exists already in that act.

As to a third-person disclosure in the third part of my amendment, the Surrogacy Bill talks about basically a mandated counselling process, and that counselling process is aimed at informing all parties of what are their legal rights and entitlements, but also the likely, I suppose, emotional and social outcomes of a decision to engage in a surrogacy arrangement. So this seeks to furnish that counsellor with information about the criminal record or allegations against a person so that a surrogate mother is fully informed, and that there is a third person present to inform her of the ramifications if there is such history for a person.

The other question the member asked was around what part the Attorney takes issue with. I suppose quite rightly that would be for the Attorney to answer, but I will do my best based on my understanding of the matters. It really only pertains to the first part of the amendment, because that amendment talks about the engagement of the central assessment unit, which is the unit that currently conducts working with children checks under the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act. At the moment, that legislation is drawn up in a way to outline or to target people who are working or volunteering with children; it is not designed for the purpose of surrogacy.

My amendment seeks to say that, notwithstanding that act, the central assessment unit can make an assessment for the purpose of surrogacy. I think the Attorney's point is that there are intergovernmental agreements that exist that facilitate the setting up of that unit, and that those intergovernmental agreements would require alteration, because at the moment they pertain to the working with children checks in relation to working and volunteering with children, not surrogacy.

So they do not allow the exchange of information between different jurisdictions for the purpose of surrogacy; they only allow the exchange of information between jurisdictions for the purpose of creating a work or volunteering-related permit. I am happy to expand on any of that if the member would like any further clarification.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again I am not sure I got the answer in relation to the second part. Obviously, what we are doing here is creating an action so that an intended parent must not be a prohibited person. We have said in law that you cannot do this. My question really is: what is the enforcement mechanism? There are other parts of this act that create offences: entering into commercial surrogacy, arranging surrogacy for another person, inducing, and advertising. Here we have a situation where someone must not, so what is the enforcement mechanism for that amendment?

Ms STINSON: That is a very good question and one that I turned my mind to when putting this together. The Surrogacy Bill basically sets up a number of criteria that a person has to meet before they are allowed to legally adopt or have that child legally recognised as their own. There is no penalty as such; the penalty is that you will not be able to enter a legally recognised surrogacy agreement.

What the bill seeks to do, essentially, is that a surrogacy arrangement is entered into, a child is born to the surrogate mother and the surrogate mother is legally the parent of that child until such time as the court orders the transferral of the parental rights to the intended parents. The bill would set up the system by which that agreement is recognised and is legal in the eyes of the court that ultimately has to make the decision.

It would mean that if a person is a prohibited person, and if they fail to meet other criteria—for example, being an Australian citizen, being 25 years of age—the court will not recognise the parental rights being transferred to the intended parents.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am looking through this and I suppose the unanswered question for me is that I cannot see here where it is an offence to enter into a surrogacy agreement without having complied with these other arrangements. Maybe that is something the member can point me towards.

Obviously, we live in a federated country and we rely on intergovernmental agreements as a way to share information, and I know there has been a whole series of issues we have been seeking to work on together nationally, especially in relation to cross-sharing facial recognition data and a whole series of other issues. My other question is: is there not a situation where, because there is not the sharing of information across borders, there would essentially be a deficiency in the legislation in being able to get the information needed to enact a lawful surrogacy agreement? What sort of mechanism would we be able to use in the absence of some sort of COAG agreement?

Ms STINSON: To address the first point, the member is right that there is not some sort of penalty in the bill for entering into an unlawful agreement. It is not unlawful to enter into an unlawful agreement; it is just that it would not be recognised by a court. The consequence of that would be that if you made an unlawful agreement the court would not transfer the parental rights from the birth mother to the intended parents.

Essentially, the custody or the parentage of the child at law would remain with the birth mother and not come over to the intended parents. That would be the consequence of someone entering into an unlawful agreement. Of course, those are not matters I have sought to amend or change at all; that is what is in the bill that has been put forward by the Attorney.

The member's second question was around the consequences of there not being an exchange of information about jurisdiction; do I have that right? The paramount consideration here is the safety of the child, and I do not believe a police check is sufficient. I believe we should be aiming for a higher standard, which is a working with children check that covers a broader array of risks to the child. I understand the Attorney's point that there are intergovernmental agreements that were put together for the purpose of checks to be devised for work and volunteer-type relationships and that those would need to be modified at COAG or through other mechanisms.

Equally, I would say that the Attorney and others are welcome to put forward some sort of alternative that achieves a higher threshold than the police check does. So it would be up to the government to either renegotiate or modify those agreements and find a way to ensure that there could be that sharing of information to ensure that we have all the information possible to be able to protect children. That is absolutely right.

But we feel, I feel, that saying something is time consuming or difficult is not a good enough justification when it comes to the protection of children and that it is certainly not impossible. We see COAG agreements changed all the time and, of course, there could be other ways of tackling this put forward as well, which I would completely welcome.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In speaking for a second time on this in the form of a question to the mover, is there not a weakness here? Even if this amendment passed, in the absence of the capacity for the police to provide all the information that is wanting to be done and for the working with children check to be able to be fully populated with the information that it would normally have access to—in other words, it might only have convictions and no particulars of the background—is there not a risk then that the person could not be a prohibited person under the act?

Therefore, your proposed expansion of the information you consider should be appropriate would fail, because the person who might have a record whom you would like to exclude actually gets through the system, not being identified as a prohibited person when clearly there would be background information that would otherwise be available, or the working with children check is frustrated by not being able to be completed with that information. Therefore, it would not undertake the effect you desire, which is to get all that information before the unit for the purposes of making that assessment to identify if they are a prohibited person.

Ms STINSON: I thank the Attorney for the question. Firstly, the working with children checks include a national police check. A national police check would be done, so charges would naturally be picked up in that. I think that addresses what the Attorney was saying. My understanding of the question that you are stating is that you are putting forward a position that a national police check would be the better way to go because you argue that an intergovernmental agreement cannot be changed and, therefore, some information is better than none.

But I would argue that a national police check is part of the working with children check anyway, so charges would be picked up in that component of the working with children check. What I am putting forward with this amendment is that a full working with children check is conducted over and above a national police check. I understand the Attorney not wanting to expend time on renegotiating or having to talk with her interstate counterparts about amending the intergovernmental agreement.

I agree that that takes time. My argument is that it is worth it. That time is absolutely worth it to ensure not only that we are picking up people who may have a conviction, which would of course be picked up by the national police check component of a working with children check, but also that we are aware of any other allegations, dropped charges, current trials that might be underway for a person who is seeking to bring a new life into this world and to have them legally become their own child.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.