Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Reproductive Technology (Clinical Practices) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY (CLINICAL PRACTICES) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 16 June 2009. Page 2641.) The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS Legislative Council The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (11:08): I indicate that I will support the second reading and anticipate that I will support the further progression of the bill. I will examine amendments at the committee stage. I commend the contribution made by my colleague, the Hon. Michelle Lensink. Whilst she spoke as the lead member in this chamber on those matters for the Liberal Party, it is a conscience matter for all members of our party. My view is that the changes which have been recommended and which encompass the bill are largely the recommendations of the Council on Reproductive Technology, which has been in existence in this state for a very long time. It is to be noted that the recommendations encompassed in the bill include the abolition of the Council on Reproductive Technology and its replacement with a health advisory expert committee (I think it is called) that will advise the minister on matters related to reproductive technology. My record on matters relating to reproductive technology are generally well-known, and much of that would be related to the fact that, for about the past 4½ years, I have been pursuing the issue of surrogacy, and particularly altruistic gestational surrogacy. Members of this chamber know that, in the past two or three decades, many measures have come in through scientific advances that have allowed people to have children who would not normally be able to have children. I think most of us applaud those measures. The obvious moral issues accompany all these things, but certainly, since the introduction of the reproductive technology act, we are a far cry from the situation that existed at that time. We all believe in the privacy of people who need to access reproductive technology, and that applies to those who wish to use surrogacy in this state and the accompanying changes that need to be made in relation to birth certificates, etc. As I say, I am generally in support of advances that can be made in this area. I think I have put it on the record before that, a very long time ago, my wife and I thought we were going to have only the one child. We had great difficulty in having a second baby—and that was prior to IVF. We went through all the tests, examinations and requirements (I suppose you would put it) of the medicos at the time, and I know how intrusive that was. Certainly, with in vitro fertilisation and surrogacy, those things go much further today. Having spoken to a number of people who have undergone surrogacy procedures, that is something that weighs on their mind very much. Most people would be aware that Mrs Kerry Faggotter and her husband, Clive, and one or two others have been prepared to be quite open about their situation. As the Hon. Mr Hunter and other members of the Social Development Committee might recall, Mrs Faggotter went on the record, when giving evidence to the Social Development Committee, and said that she was prepared to talk about her insides. Not many people are prepared to do that: many people are very private about that. If we can do anything to advance the cause of people who require reproductive technology, it is a very good thing that this parliament can do. As I said, I will examine the amendments at the committee stage of this bill, but I do commend the second reading and look forward to the committee stage. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.