HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY (CLINICAL PRACTICES) (ARTIFICIAL FERTILISATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 October 2008. Page 518.)

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (11:02): I will be very brief, because I will not speak to the essence of the bill as we have our own bill, which minister Hill introduced yesterday. I was very disappointed—in fact, disgusted—by a press release issued by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (the member for Bragg) in relation to this case. She indicated that she was very disappointed that the bill she had introduced would be debated and voted on today. The press release states:

Ms Chapman said she was astounded by Minister Hill's comment yesterday that the matter was brought to his attention by Member for Norwood, Vini Ciccarello.

The Minister's statement that the matter was brought to his attention by Member for Norwood Vini Ciccarello…

It went on to say:

The deficiencies of the current reproductive technology legislation and the plight of Sheree Blake have been discussed in the media for months. This is not an issue which has arisen overnight and it could be solved very quickly but instead the minister is playing games to prop up a Labor MP in a marginal seat.

I happen to have known Lee Blake for many years, when he first started to play for Norwood. We were all devastated when we heard that he had leukaemia; it was a great tragedy for a very talented young player. We organised a fundraiser for him. We were very pleased when he went into remission but, unfortunately, the disease came back. The last time I spoke to Lee was earlier this year at the Payneham Football Club. At that time, he was very happy and told me how thrilled he was with his marriage and how his life was going very well.

I attended Lee's funeral in May this year. Just a few days later, Sheree Blake contacted me about this issue. She rang my office on 2 June, and I then wrote to minister Hill on 4 June about Sheree's plight and what could be done about it. The minister responded within a couple of days, and I passed on that information to Sheree. The minister's letter, dated 30 June this year, stated that he was referring this issue to the SA Council on Reproductive Technology to review Memorandum 9 in the light of Mrs Blake's circumstances, and they were seeking legal advice on the interpretation of the law. He stated, 'Regrettably, this may take some time and I will contact you again once the legal advice is available.'

I have kept in contact with Sheree and was sorry on her behalf that this was taking so long. However, she understood, because this is not something that affects just her but also many other people. Quite frankly, I am disgusted that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has sunk to new depths in suggesting that someone would use an issue like this for political gain. Whenever I represent my constituents, it is just for their benefit and not to gain any political benefit. I am very pleased that the government has now introduced a bill that is much broader ranging than the one introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:06): I rise in support of this legislation, although I note that yesterday the Minister for Health introduced the Reproductive Technology (Clinical Practices) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2008 which, as the member for Norwood has said, is broader than that introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The need to do this was highlighted by the recent case of Mrs Sheree Blake. Her husband had died, and she was denied the use of his sperm for artificial reproduction technology and the ability to create an embryo, have it implanted and, hopefully, give birth to a child.

The need to have this done in South Australia is well and truly overdue. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was quite right in introducing this piece of legislation. Whilst I support the legislation, there was a need to broaden it, because there were cases where embryos or eggs were in storage and they needed to be brought into the legislation. I am very pleased to see that the government has seen the light and is introducing this legislation.

The delay is disappointing. Once the legislation is enacted I would certainly like to see that people who want to have access to this technology can have access to it as soon as possible. Not only is actual time ticking away but people's biological clocks are ticking away. There is nothing more delightful than having one's own children. I feel a lot of empathy for people who are unable to conceive naturally. My wife and I were very fortunate in having two wonderful children, and now I have a granddaughter. It is a wonderful thing to happen. Not being able to have children is something I would not wish on anybody. This legislation was introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and it has now been taken up by the government in a broader sense. It is something that South Australians should be very pleased about.

Another area we need to look at is surrogacy, and there is a bill before the house. I understand the government is supporting the bill that was introduced in this place regarding surrogacy. I look forward to that bill progressing through this house, as well. Certainly, the bill that was introduced yesterday by the Minister for Health, from my understanding, does not go along that path. There are some real issues there.

Another bill we thought was to be dealt with today is the births, deaths and marriages registration bill introduced by the member for Davenport. That is part of the gamut of tidying up the legalities around artificial reproductive technology and making sure that children and families have a definite lineage, not only where the gametes are from. Whether that is through a certificate or some other means is absolutely vital.

I am very pleased to see that the government has broadened the legislation introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for introducing the legislation. It was done with passion and not with a base political motive: she did it to make sure that South Australians get a fair go in this state, because that is what they want. I support the bill.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (11:10): I will be speaking against this bill, mainly because the government bill which is before the house is the preferred bill to support. Also, the government bill, as already mentioned, is more comprehensive and addresses a number of issues which, from my point of view, are weaknesses in the bill we are now debating.

This case is well known to the house because it is as a result of a well publicised case of a young widow who had been denied access to sperm stored prior to her husband's death. Importantly, consent was obtained to use the sperm but, unfortunately, the current laws do not allow that to happen. Unfortunately, in the haste to—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I would not recommend that. You should only keep foodstuffs at home in the freezer, not other things.

The member for Bragg's proposed amendments to the Reproductive Technology Act allows for the posthumous use of sperm, particularly in order to resolve the above situation. However, the amendments as currently worded (as I understand them) have some unforeseen implications. For example, as the member for Bragg's bill is currently worded it could prevent some women who are currently eligible from receiving a clinic service because they are widows. For instance, if a women is widowed and does not re-partner but, later, wants to conceive a child and finds out she is infertile or at risk of passing on a genetic defect, she could currently use a clinic. Under the bill, strictly speaking, she could not do this, because she can only use the sperm of her deceased husband.

Conversely, if a married couple stores sperm with the husband's consent but they later separate and he does not revoke his consent and then dies, she can still conceive his child using clinic services. In addition, the member for Bragg's bill proposes amendments to sections of the Reproductive Technology Act which, if the proposal succeeds, would be deleted, therefore rendering her bill inoperative.

There is broad support overall for the proposed changes to the Reproductive Technology Act. This bill is opposed by the government on the grounds that, in the haste to get it here, there are some unforeseen consequences and the government's bill is more comprehensive because, through a process of reflection in its preparation, it does cover the issue better.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:13): As there is a government bill dealing with the same topic I would be inclined to not vote for this legislation. I approach the issue of artificial fertilisation with the utmost gravity. Since the government bill is apparently broader and deals with the topic, it makes sense to leave consideration until we deal with that legislation. It is a credit to the member for Bragg that she initiated legislation in this place. She was the one to bring it here in order to solve the particular lady's problem. It is a credit to her, but I think it probably makes sense to leave consideration of the matter until we deal with the government bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:14): I thank all speakers who have made a contribution to this debate. In summary, it appears that those who have spoken and who oppose the bill do so on the basis that, this week, the government introduced its Reproductive Technology (Clinical Practices) Miscellaneous Amendment Bill 2008, and that will cover the field regarding the basis of the bill that I have presented to the parliament. Therefore, they will wait for consideration of that bill, it being more comprehensive, and it may cover some apparent defect in my bill, at least in the opinion of one of the speakers.

It is open for the government right now to come in here and support this bill. If the minister is so in need of publicity and having this matter in his name, then I consent to it. He could come in here and tell the house that he will introduce his part of the bill this afternoon in government business time, and he can have the glory of dealing with the substance of the issue that is in the bill before us today, and he can have it in his name. And, if he thinks that there is any amendment to deal with widows, which has been raised by one of the other speakers, he can introduce it right now, we can deal with this this afternoon, and he can have it in his name.

The government is using the grounds that it needs to deal with reproductive technology reform in a more comprehensive way. I remind the house that the substance of the areas the government says need attention in dealing with its bill include the question of unacceptable and prohibited practices. For the record, in summary, the things the government says need to be remedied are the shortcomings of the national standards and guidelines; the non-compliance of the national competition policy; the eligibility requirements which are more limited in other jurisdictions and which drive this reproductive tourism problem of people going across the border; the inability to accommodate new treatments; and the legal barriers to donors' registration schemes.

All of those, we accept, merit coming back to the parliament to be dealt with. We have no issue with them in the sense of needing to deal with them. Having been given the bill, we will expeditiously deal with this on our side of the house and, as soon as practicable, we will deal with it. The fact is that, unless this bill goes through today and is dealt with in another place—which is now sitting next week, which it can do—there is no chance that Sheree Blake will have her baby, if she wishes to, in 2009. She will now have to wait and have her baby no earlier than 2010, because the government is so selfish about wanting to take the credit for this in its name. That is the problem.

This young widow, who has gone to members of the government and opposition to seek help over the past of months, has presented this to the minister. Only after it has been introduced in this form through this bill here this morning, he finally comes to the party and says, 'I'll deal with it, but it's got to be my name, and I've got to deal with all these other things.' 'All these other things', I might remind the house, have been reported to this parliament year after year in the seven years of this government. Again this week, we had the gene technology activities report, which has to be tabled in the parliament every year, for what happened in 2007, and there it is all again. All these issues are there year after year.

The government has had all these years to deal with this, but now, suddenly, it wants to deal with it all in a new bill, including remedying this critical situation for this young widow, Sheree Blake, and make her wait for any opportunity to have her baby until 2010. That is scandalous. In closing, I say that it is unacceptable for the government to delay the particular circumstances of this lady all because it wants the credit. I say right here and now that, if the minister wants to come in and say to the parliament, 'Yes; I want to have this in my name. I will introduce my part of the bill, and I will revisit it this afternoon in government business. I'll peel off all these other things that we can deal with next year. I'll reintroduce another bill to cover these. I want this in my name,' I can say to the parliament right now that I will support his bill: bring it in this afternoon. He can have the credit.

The house divided on the second reading:

AYES (13)
Chapman, V.A. (teller) Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P.
Gunn, G.M. McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S.
Penfold, E.M. Pengilly, M. Pisoni, D.G.
Redmond, I.M. Such, R.B. Venning, I.H.
Williams, M.R.
NOES (26)
Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W. Breuer, L.R.
Caica, P. Ciccarello, V. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Hanna, K. Hill, J.D. (teller)
Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, T.
Lomax-Smith, J.D. Maywald, K.A. McEwen, R.J.
O'Brien, M.F. Piccolo, T. Portolesi, G.
Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R. Simmons, L.A.
Stevens, L. Thompson, M.G. Weatherill, J.W.
White, P.L. Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (4)
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Foley, K.O.
Evans, I.F. Rann, M.D.

Majority of 13 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT