STATUTES AMENDMENT (SURROGACY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 May 2010.)

The Hon. T.A. JENNINGS (20:13): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy) Amendment Bill 2010 on behalf of the Greens. The Greens stand tonight to support this bill. We note that it changes the clause of the original bill that limited retrospectivity to five year old children and that this clause extends retrospectivity to 10 year old children.

As members would know, the current bill was introduced on 12 May 2010 by the Hon. John Dawkins and that the original bill was first introduced much earlier, on 21 June 2006. It was passed as the Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy) Act 2009 in the Legislative Council on 18 June 2008. It then took the House of Assembly a lot longer before it passed the bill on 19 November 2009. The original bill will come into effect in November 2010.

This bill provides protections and parental recognition for the biological parents of a child carried to term by an altruistic surrogate. As members would know, there have been strong campaigners: the Hon. Mr Dawkins has taken up the case, as has my honourable colleague, Mark Parnell. Many other members in this place have worked to have this bill introduced and passed.

It has been done largely on behalf of Clive and Kerry Faggotter who have a son, Ethan, through the means of an altruistic gestational surrogacy. No money changed hands, apart from costs in regard to that surrogacy. I also note at that time the Hon. Ian Hunter suggested an amendment, which failed to get up, which would allow this altruistic gestation or surrogacy to also apply to same-sex couples. Of course, that amendment was supported by the Hon. Mark Parnell and, should it be put again today, it would be supported by me, but that was ultimately rejected.

In the debate on this bill, Mrs Faggotter shared personal details about herself. She appeared before a standing committee on the matter to talk about her own physical problems, which preclude her from being able to carry her own child to term. Sharing such a personal detail takes considerable mental and emotional strength, and I pay tribute to Mrs Faggotter for doing that.

This bill recognises a number of issues in relation to parents who have successfully brought a child into this world through surrogacy measures. These are people who go to enormous lengths to bring a much-wanted child into the world, in the same way as same-sex couples who are co-parenting a child. The issues include the absence of a parent's name on the birth certificate leading to difficulties travelling interstate and overseas, enrolling in schools and kindergartens, signing school notes or excursions, and, as I discussed earlier on today, the issues of inheritance and legal rights should one parent die and the other is not recorded on the birth certificate. It is not appropriate for parents to adopt their own child simply to access the legal rights associated with parenting when they already bear all the responsibilities and they already have that family connection of love.

Structures of families are constantly changing as our society changes around us. Regardless of members' personal views and political allegiances, I am sure all members would agree that the most important aspect is to ensure that those children we bring into this world are raised by people who love and care for them and that those parental relationships are recognised and protected by law.

This bill is to be commended for taking a step towards the recognition and valuing of a family unit that has come about through surrogacy. It obviously has reference to the particular case of the Faggotter family taken up by the Hon. John Dawkins, and I pay him a great deal of respect for all that hard work.

For a range of reasons, the bill took a great deal of time to pass through both houses of parliament and, whilst it is a welcome and positive change, it still leaves many (namely, same-sex couples) in legal limbo, where the rights and wellbeing of both parents and child are not protected. The bill posits the welfare rights and interests of the child as paramount, and this sentiment is to be commended. One can only hope that such sentiments are also expressed in this place in relation to other legislation concerning the welfare of children. On that note, I support the bill and commend it to the council.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (20:18): In summing up the debate, I thank the Hon. Tammy Jennings for her contribution, which has been the only contribution made to this debate. However, there are many others around this chamber who have indicated their support to me without wanting to speak to the bill in front of us. I do thank the Hon. Tammy Jennings for her sincere comments.

I remember well the amendment put forward by the Hon. Ian Hunter, which was supported by the Hon. Mr Parnell and other members of the chamber. I will remain always grateful to those who, despite the fact that the amendment failed, did not try to pull the bill down and that the bill went through this place on the voices and eventually was passed emphatically by the House of Assembly. As the honourable member said, it took longer than most of us would have liked, but the bill did pass the House of Assembly 31 votes to seven.

In relation to this bill, it is unfortunate that we had to come back so quickly with an amendment, but it was amongst all of the large range of amendments that were put to me by the minister's department last year. It escaped the attention of all of us, including our very good friends in parliamentary counsel, until after the bill had gone through.

It has been said that this is just about Clive and Kerry Faggotter and their son, Ethan. Certainly, the Faggotters have been a driving force behind what I have done in this area over a number of years now. However, I think the point that the Hon. Tammy Jennings emphasised was that Mrs Kerry Faggotter has been prepared to be up-front and she has been prepared to tell the world—or tell South Australia at least—about the problems—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Thank you, minister. I will put that on the record and acknowledge that interjection—that South Australia is the world!

Mrs Faggotter has been prepared to tell everybody who wanted to listen about the problems she has had. Not everybody else wants to do that. There are a number of other people who will be similarly impacted upon by the passing of this amendment bill tonight who have not been out there publicly but who have also probably been denied the ability to get their names on the birth certificate of their biological child as a result of us just missing that five year deadline through delays in the House of Assembly.

May I also say—I will not say plead—that I would be very grateful if my colleagues in the House of Assembly allow this to make a speedy passage through their chamber. It was frustrating for myself, my staff and certainly Mrs Faggotter to go into the House of Assembly on a number of occasions when we had been promised that it would be debated only to see it adjourned for no particular reason. I would be grateful if it could be dealt with in an expedient manner in the House of Assembly. Having said that, I commend this bill to the house.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.