Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Assisted Reproductive Treatment (Assistance for Lesbians and Single Women) Amendment Bill ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TREATMENT (ASSISTANCE FOR LESBIANS AND SINGLE WOMEN) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (16:42): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 1988. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (16:42): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I rise to introduce the Assisted Reproductive Treatment (Assistance for Lesbians and Single Women) Amendment Bill 2011. Most of my colleagues would now be aware that this amendment bill contains the same amendments I moved in this place in July 2009 when we debated the Reproductive Technology (Clinical Practices) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. This bill is also based on recommendations made by the Social Development Committee's 2011 report into same-sex parenting. The Assisted Reproductive Treatment (Assistance for Lesbians and Single Women) Amendment Bill 2011 seeks to amend section 9 of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 1988 which currently prevents some single women and some women in same-sex relationships from accessing some IVF services in South Australia. As the proposed amendments and the arguments supporting these amendments have not altered since I last spoke on this issue, I will not indulge in a lengthy repetition of speeches I have previously delivered in this place; rather, today I seek to provide just a brief summary of the key points involved with this debate. Current South Australian law requires a woman to be diagnosed medically infertile in order to access assisted reproductive treatments. This, of course, has significant implications for same-sex couples in that it specifically excludes couples who may not have any medical impediment to achieve pregnancy but whose sexual orientation prevents them from conceiving without some form of assisted reproductive treatment. The current South Australian reproductive technology law, with its narrow definition of infertility, forces many lesbian couples to travel to other jurisdictions where laws are less restrictive, often incurring unnecessary expense and stress. It also results in some women choosing to self-inseminate outside of regulated clinical settings, which can potentially lead to danger for both the woman and the child involved. The Social Development Committee's 2011 report into same-sex parenting noted that self-insemination may place a woman and her child at risk of disease because the donor is not thoroughly screened for genetic diseases or sexually transmitted infections. Furthermore, the use of self-insemination in private arrangements may mean that a child born through such arrangements will be denied information about the full circumstances of their birth and genetic background. This bill therefore seeks to broaden the criteria used to define infertility as previously consistent with the provisions contained in Victorian legislation. As technology and social values change, it is necessary for legislation to evolve to reflect those changes. Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory all allow lesbian couples to access reproductive technologies—every state and territory in this country except us. That South Australia does not allow it speaks volumes. As I have said before, by insisting on our current legislation we do not stop a single pregnancy; we merely force women to stump up thousands of dollars to travel interstate for that treatment. If our current legislation is so ineffective, why do we then insist on it? Why do we force women to travel interstate for these treatments, a treatment regime that can involve many trips over many months? It seems to me to smack of nothing more than meanness. Nothing is achieved by limiting access to IVF in South Australia in this way, other than to force South Australian women to spend upwards of $20,000 to become pregnant in Melbourne, in Sydney or in Canberra. This parliament runs the risk of being seen as mean and vindictive to lesbian couples who seek to start a family using IVF. It is also important to note—and not everyone understands this point—that, by broadening access to IVF clinics to otherwise fertile women, no additional financial burden is imposed on the state or commonwealth. Women who would use this facility who are not medically infertile have to pay for that service—I understand at a full cost recovery rate. I have twice spoken at length in this place on the need for these amendments. For those who seek further information, I refer honourable members to the second reading speech I delivered in this place on Thursday 16 July 2009, and also to the speech I gave on the report as chair of the Social Development Committee on Wednesday 18 May 2011. Finally, I look forward to the debate on this bill and, perhaps optimistically, to a slightly different outcome to that of 2009. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink.