HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY (CLINICAL PRACTICES) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 1724.)

Mr KENYON (Newland) (15:59): I wish to make a few comments on the bill, and the main one relates to the provisions to allow the sperm of people who have died to be used to father children. I have a couple of objections, and these are the matters I want to raise with the house. First, in this case, we would allow people deliberately to bring into this world a child whom we knew, right from the very outset, would not have a father.

Over time, there has been a great diminution of the role of fathers in the life of children. I believe that it is a very important thing, and we should not deliberately be doing it. I understand that there are single mothers right around the world, that babies are being brought into this world without a father through accident or even deliberately. I do not think that is right. This is even more deliberate: it is not an accident, it cannot possibly be an accident. We are deliberately doing it, and I do not know that it is in the best interests of the child. The bill talks about the best interests of the child, and I think that has been narrowed down to purely health provisions or perhaps a dangerous environment that the child might be brought into.

One of the matters that should be taken into account when judging the best interests of the child is whether the child will have the best parenting outcomes. There has been study after study showing that a man and a woman in a loving environment is the best environment in which to bring up a child. By definition, that cannot occur when one of the parents is already dead before the child is even conceived.

The second point that I would like to make goes more to the way society is changing. In my view, children are increasingly being viewed as a commodity, that one has a right to have a child: 'I feel like I need a child in my life, therefore I have a right to have one.' A child is not a commodity: it is another person, and it needs to be treated as such. The rights of that person need to be viewed considerately and with a long-term view as to the best way for them to be brought up and the best environment that they can be introduced to. So, with those two concerns that I have raised in the house, I think I will be voting against various provisions in this bill. I look forward to the contribution of other members on these matters.

The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Frome, I draw the attention of members to the fact that this is his maiden speech to the house, and I ask the house to extend to him the usual courtesies.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (16:03): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As my honourable colleague over here said, I have been a mayor, so I expect a bit of heckling, but I appreciate the protocol of the state parliament. I would just like to commend the bill to the house and, in doing so, I would also like to acknowledge in my maiden speech my colleagues present here today. I have to admit that, being my third sitting week in parliament, I am still finding it a bit daunting. I am still finding my way around the corridors, but I have found where the canteen is and where the toilets are, so that is the main thing.

Members interjecting:

Mr BROCK: I thought it was quiet, but I will take that as a bit of joviality. I would like to sincerely thank the electors of Frome for voting for me through the democratic process. I assure all the constituents of Frome, and my fellow members present here today, that I will do my very best to not only represent them but also work with the elected government, the opposition and my other parliamentary colleagues within this great institution to ensure that South Australia benefits from all our decisions in this chamber.

I would also like to mention that I am very passionate about regional South Australia in particular, and I would like to work towards regional South Australia's share of resources from this government being recognised and implemented in the future.

Before proceeding, I want to sincerely thank my partner, Lyn, my children and, in particular, our 12 grandchildren for their assistance, their patience and their understanding. It is very hard for them to comprehend the move from being a mayor to the position of a state member of the South Australian parliament. However, as time proceeds, they are becoming more understanding, but they are still a bit concerned that they may not be able to see me as often as previously.

Family is very important to Lyn and me, and our children and grandchildren are our priority. This was the reason for becoming involved with local government for the first time 20 years ago and also for undertaking the role of mayor of the Port Pirie Regional Council. Children are our leaders of tomorrow, and we need to do whatever we can to ensure that we all leave a better environment for them.

Being an Independent candidate in a by-election was a very daunting experience, indeed. Independent candidates virtually have nowhere to turn to for advice or for resources to manage a campaign. However, in my case, from nowhere appeared a very small group of passionate volunteers to assist with this campaign. We may be novices, but we learnt as we proceeded, and we had lots of fun learning. At the end of the day, I must admit, the majority of those volunteers had no interest whatsoever in politics but, by the end of the campaign, they were not only interested in politics, they were very passionate about regional South Australia, and South Australia in particular, and the feeling was one of great achievement.

On behalf of the constituents of Frome, I would also like to sincerely thank the former member, Rob Kerin. Rob carried out his duties as the member for Frome with great passion and dedication. He also carried out the duties of premier of this great state and also leader of the opposition after the current government came to power. I know the sacrifices that I made as a mayor, let alone the sacrifices Rob has made in his roles over the previous 15 years. Again, Rob, congratulations.

The electorate of Frome—named after E.C. Frome, the third surveyor-general of South Australia—is a very diverse and productive electorate, stretching from the industrial, commercial and retail city of Port Pirie to the agricultural areas of the beautiful township of Clare and the towns of Auburn, Crystal Brook, Gladstone, Georgetown, Laura, Mintaro, Penwortham, Port Broughton, Snowtown, Tarlee and Riverton.

Mrs Redmond: And Yacka.

Mr BROCK: And Yacka. You're right, and I apologise for that. However, it is a diverse electorate, covering over 7,000 square kilometres. I am finding that, over the last three weeks, I have gradually come to grips with all the issues across the whole electorate—doing 4,000 kilometres in the last 2½ weeks.

The current boundaries have been in place since 1991, and were first contested and won by Rob Kerin in 1993. The largest community within the electorate is Port Pirie, where the major employer is the Nyrstar lead and zinc smelter, followed by the Port Pirie Regional Health Service (in the way of numbers of employed people).

Port Pirie was proclaimed the first provincial city in South Australia and at one point was the fourth busiest port in Australia. Port Pirie also boasted having the three rail gauges, where all trains traversing Australia needed to stop and transfer passengers, goods and freight before continuing their journeys across this great nation.

There were also three major oil company installations with large bulk storage tanks for the various petroleum products, a large maritime and stevedoring industry, a Coca-Cola bottling plant, bread and cake factories, and during the Second World War the local aerodrome served as a training facility for over 4,000 pilots from all over Australia.

Port Pirie is currently rebirthing itself and the optimism is tremendous throughout the community and region, and it is working towards becoming a retail commercial service outlet for the north.

The second largest location is Clare, which is a great tourist destination, with the main employment being derived from tourism, sheep, beef cattle and grain growing and, as we are all aware, it is renown for its vineyards and great quality wines.

With most employment activities within the electorate of Frome being mostly price takers, that is, the prices are dictated by overseas demands, and with what has been happening with the global financial meltdown, it is becoming very hard to manage. However, knowing the people of Frome, we will persevere and in the finish we will all be stronger for the struggle. Whilst the overheads continue to increase, the final price for the product is diminishing. This is a very daunting thought.

The electorate of Frome has been, not recently but for some time now, adversely affected by the 'state of Adelaide' attitude, which has seen enormous centralisation occur over many years, and this is still occurring with major moves by the state government. This has not only closed many of our services but has also resulted in a continuous exodus of many of our youth to Adelaide and elsewhere.

This has been no more evident than with the long and unpopular implementation of the shared services which, I must say, has still not been finalised. If this goes ahead in its final form, we will see partners and families of those affected having to relocate from regional South Australia, and Frome is no exception.

This move has a domino effect on associated services, these being: reductions in school teachers, SAPOL and health, to mention a few. These service personnel numbers are based on the number of students and also the population numbers of the region concerned (wherever the services may be located).

Whilst there are rural assistance packages for people to access across the electorate, and South Australia, they are at times very hard to access and understand. Even when they are accessed, the service may not be available due to the fact that it may have been a victim of government rationalisation. I would hope that when this government goes forward it takes these items into consideration.

To try to combat these issues, the regional development boards, namely, the Mid North Regional Development Board at Clare and the Southern Flinders Ranges Development Board at Port Pirie, are working tirelessly to create employment opportunities. The so-called resource boom occurring to the north of the state, is a term which I believe has been used for political gain. The only activities occurring are the exploration activities.

Since writing this report, there are a lot of industries feeling the pinch now because of the global economic situation. The largest activity is at Roxby Downs, and even there they are feeling the pinch at the moment, where they are getting ready for the final products, and also the activity at Prominent Hill. There are numerous mining opportunities taking place; however, with the global financial activities and the global uncertainty these projects may not materialise for many years. We just hope that the world comes to its senses and realises that we should all be going forward in a positive manner, not negative.

Another issue facing any prospect of resource activities continuing is the adequate and guaranteed supply of water to the northern cities, in particular to the northern sector of the state. This issue also confronts other parts of the electorate of Frome, and my fellow members can be assured that I will be working with everyone in this chamber to ensure that this subject is continually in our focus and that we give it the utmost consideration and implementation to ensure that not only the electorate of Frome but all regional South Australia, and the Eyre Peninsula in particular, has guaranteed water. Unlike the surrounding areas of Adelaide, these other parts of the state do not have the luxury of having adequate, if any, water catchment facilities to be able to store the water in aquifers or dams.

For this state to prosper we need to not only focus on the water issue but also on health issues and facilities across the region, which in the past 12 months has caused great concern and uncertainty in regional South Australia, and I mention the original South Australian Country Health Care Plan that was delivered to communities across regional South Australia.

I do not believe that people living in capital cities realise the importance and appreciate the dependence that country people place on having reliable and easy access to hospital and medical facilities. Whilst another plan came out, the uncertainty is creating issues with the elderly people of our communities.

Hospitals are the safety net and, in some locations, the largest providers of employment opportunities, and the uncertainty was causing great stress for the elderly. This was of great concern to not only the larger locations across the whole state but, in particular, smaller townships where we all appreciate and understand the necessity to have continual improvement and reviews of all services that this state provides to the residents.

However, I believe communication, clear and precise, is what the communities are looking for, and to be able to have genuine input and suggestions to any changes to both the health system and/or any other facilities that we may have to rationalise or review.

Another area which we as a state do not seem to be focusing enough resources on is education. I know that the stimulus package has just come out, however, prior to the global financial meltdown all South Australians were crying out the same message: lack of skilled labour.

However, prior to the financial meltdown across the globe, all members and all South Australians were crying the same message: lack of skilled labour. However, we do not appear to be providing adequate educational resources and facilities for both education and training opportunities across this great state. In particular, in regional parts of South Australia classrooms are becoming crowded and many do not have adequate air-conditioning, and some public schools may not have that luxury. I am sure that all members know how uncomfortable it has been with the high temperatures recently and how hard it is to concentrate outside this chamber, once they get out into the open environment.

While I may have been a bit critical of the shortfalls across this great state in regard to government responsibilities, there is one area which has been of great concern to Port Pirie residents and the region, and also to the whole state, that is, the image that has been focused on Port Pirie for many years involving high lead levels in the blood of children living in Port Pirie.

I congratulate this government, in particular minister John Hill and the Premier, for their great work and the relationship they have with Nyrstar, the Port Pirie lead smelter and Port Pirie Regional Council. This is a working partnership between the Port Pirie smelter, the Port Pirie Regional Council, the Department of Health, the Environment Protection Authority, the whole of state government and, more importantly, the whole community of Port Pirie. The whole community of Port Pirie believes in the project TenBy10 and is getting right behind it. The aim of all the partners is to have 95 per cent of children living in Port Pirie with a lead in blood reading of 10 micrograms per decilitre by the end of 2010.

This project has been in place for just over two years and there has been a remarkable reduction in the number of children with reducing lead in blood readings. The local smelter has committed nearly $70 million to environmental improvements, including enclosing the blast furnace of the smelter—something that everyone has been talking about for the last 25 years. I reinforce that this $70 million is to be spent on environmental improvements—no more and nothing extra towards the bottom dollar to the financial gain of the smelter.

The reason for mentioning the above subject is simple. We all have different views both politically and personally, but if we all put aside these differences and work collaboratively together we can achieve great results. I know that every member here will put their constituents and South Australia at the top of their priorities and always place them ahead of politics and self.

Before I conclude, I have to say that, before entering this house—which I do with great pride—I spent the last 20 years serving the people living in areas surrounding Port Pirie. I did that by sitting on many community committees—far too many to mention. I worked in various positions at the local smelter at Port Pirie before retiring 18 months ago. I have been an owner-operator of a roadhouse at Port Augusta, where I initially employed 15 people and then 45 people after three years. Prior to that I was a manager for BP Australia at Port Augusta, covering nearly 80 per cent of the northern areas of this great state.

One of the things I have always believed throughout the past 20 years, and even prior to that when I operated the roadhouse and worked at BP Australia, is that working as a team is the only and best way in which to achieve results. I assure all members present today and the constituents of Frome that I am here to work with government members and all my other colleagues to ensure that we do the best for this great state and our children and grandchildren.

In closing, I thank all members for listening to my maiden speech. I am looking forward to meeting all members in a more informed manner as I go along. I am still learning—and I make no bones about that. I will be sitting here listening. I am not one to jump in. When I do jump in, then I will have my facts correct. I want to work with all members on both sides of politics towards a better future for all South Australians.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:20): I congratulate the member for Frome on his maiden speech and I rise to support this bill, which has been a long time coming. It was introduced into the house on 26 November last year. However, it has been out and about for consultation and it has been talked about for a long time.

I have spoken about the member for Bragg's private member's bill, the Reproductive Technology (Clinical Practices) (Artificial Fertilisation) Amendment Bill, which she introduced into this place last year. While I supported that private member's bill, I said at the time that I was looking forward to seeing the government's legislation. It has been a long time coming. It is well overdue.

In my opinion, the bill does not go far enough. There is another piece of legislation which is being discussed around this place and which has passed through the upper house as a private member's bill. That bill addresses the issue of surrogacy. The minister and some of his advisers have said to me that the issue of surrogacy is not covered in this bill because the issue is too complicated to be dealt with under this bill. That is not my belief. I believe that we could deal with that issue under this legislation. We need to ensure that we are being fair to all people who require the use of artificial reproductive technology and that it is available to all South Australians.

The bill has been a long time coming. It is welcomed by all members on this side. The shadow minister has had a fair bit to say about it. Other members in this place will give their points of view. It is a conscience vote for members on this side of the house. I can say that my conscience is clear and I will be supporting this legislation with the utmost energy.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (16:22): I welcome this bill and indicate that I will be supporting it. I want to focus on two aspects of the bill. First, in respect of reproductive technology, my wife and I were involved in the IVF program without success about 13 years ago. I can tell members that it is not a very enjoyable process. It is a very stressful process, particularly for the woman involved. To attend the clinic where these services are offered is a very chilling experience, because there are not too many smiling faces. People are trying to have a child. I have three boys from my first marriage, but, as I say, Lyn and I were unsuccessful, even though nowadays, probably, the technology has significantly improved. We all know about human physiology and that women have the eggs they are born with and that is it, whereas men generate new sperm continuously and can be fertile and productive in terms of sexual reproduction well into their 70s and beyond.

In fact, there are some cases where women have had babies well past normally expected closure time, but they tend to be few and far between. I think that many young women now watch their biological clock closely and tend to disregard the advice of people such as Germaine Greer; I think that her advice has now been generally disowned by many. In talking about the IVF program, I would like to pay tribute to Professor John Kerin who sadly was killed a few years ago. He was a fantastic researcher and, I guess, physician. It was a tragedy for people involved or who sought reproductive technology when he was accidentally killed near the Barossa Valley a few years ago. He was a fantastic contributor and one of the pioneers in respect of reproductive technology.

The other aspect I want to focus on quickly today is an important issue. A constituent's name has appeared in the paper so it is not really a confidential matter. His name is Damian Adams and he was featured in an article, with a photograph, in the Sunday Mail on 30 November last year. Basically, Damian wants to know who his father was. His father was a sperm donor. We know that in relation to sperm donors the traditional practice has been to use medical students—I guess on the assumption that they are probably pretty intelligent people and that they are decent, upstanding people, and therefore I think that most people would be proud to have a medico as their father.

There is an irony in this instance in that Damian is a medical researcher at one of our leading hospitals, the Women's and Children's, and he said to me that, in fact, he may actually be passing his father in the corridor without knowing. He has a medical bent in terms of being a medical researcher, but he says that the irony is that he might actually be mixing with his father at the Women's and Children's Hospital. He wants to be able to find out who his sperm donor father is. I will basically quote from the letter I wrote to him yesterday because I have been corresponding with him for a while. I thank parliamentary counsel for its prompt action in drawing up an amendment yesterday, which I now have on the table here for consideration by members.

I pointed out to Damian that the amendments I had drafted by Richard Dennis will facilitate a process whereby the Department for Health or the Department for Families and Communities will be able to contact donor fathers to ask whether they are willing to make information about their sperm donation—that is, contact details—available to their offspring. My letter states:

Whilst I understand the current laws do not prevent information from being released, they don't facilitate a process whereby contact can be made with donors who were subject to privacy agreements. Under my amendment donors will be asked if they are willing to provide their contact details to their donor offspring.

I am aware that the Adoption Act (1988) allows for the release of information of relinquishing parents! However, section 27B(2) of the act [the Adoption Act] still affords birth parents the right to make a direction preventing the release of their details. This direction [in fact, the veto] can only be overturned by the minister when it is in the [interests] of the adopted person [I think the word they use is 'welfare'] (section 27B(5)).

What the amendments I put before members today will do is essentially maintain that veto arrangement, except, I would think, in probably the rare case where a minister believes there is some compelling reason (in this case in the interests of the child or the person resulting from the sperm donation) in their interest to override that agreement that was made by the donor. I put that to members today. I do not think it is an unreasonable provision.

I have given the minister a copy of the amendment. I know he was going to study it (I have actually four amendments as part of this package) to see whether he could agree to the amendment. I put it to members and ask for their consideration, not only for the benefit of Damian but also for the benefit of others who are in a similar position and who, I can understand, naturally want to know who their father is. At the same time, I realise that some people—in fact, maybe all—gave donated sperm on the basis of confidentiality. I do not intend to suggest that this is not a serious matter. It is, but I think that our community has moved on and situations have changed; and I think that, provided you have safeguards built in, there is protection for those who do not want to reveal their identity. That is a reasonable measure to incorporate in this bill. I commend those amendments to the house.

Ms FOX (Bright) (16:30): I support this bill. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Health on introducing the reforms to the act and, in my opinion, he is doing a good thing. I am very aware that some people in this place and, indeed, some people on my own side of parliament do not believe this, and for some people it poses some ethical concerns. However, I believe that the Minister for Health has taken a very responsible approach to this legislation which is not a significant shift in policy.

The bill seeks to ensure that infertility treatment or assisted reproductive treatment meets the needs of the 21st century and removes inconsistency and duplication with national licensing and an accreditation scheme. I think that the Minister for Health has reached an appropriate balance in this area. The bill will ensure that assisted reproductive treatment in South Australia is appropriately regulated and that clinical practice meets the needs of South Australian families who need assisted reproductive treatment to form a family.

The original act has been in operation since 1988 and the code has been in operation since 1995. At that time the act and, indeed, the code were groundbreaking and they were ahead of their time. It is my understanding that, when Victoria and Western Australia were seeking to put their own legislation in place, they looked at what we were doing here. However, that was over 20 years ago and much has changed since then. Infertility treatment is now much more an accepted means of family formation: it is more mainstream than it was.

Back then, infertility treatment was shrouded in secrecy. Couples undergoing treatment did not want it known and donors of gametes—that is, eggs and sperm—also wanted their identity kept secret. It is only recently that assisted reproductive treatment has become an accepted means of family formation. Indeed, I can safely say that, amongst my wider circle of acquaintance, probably 50 per cent of the families I know have had access to ART.

The importance for donor-conceived offspring to have information about their origins and genetic heritage is also now acknowledged and it is widely accepted. Assisted reproductive treatment is now highly regulated nationally. As part of the national scheme, assisted reproductive treatment providers and clinics must be accredited and issued with a licence to provide ART. As part of this national scheme, clinics must comply with a comprehensive code of practice.

When the Reproductive Technology Act was introduced all those years ago, this national scheme did not exist. The current RT Act is now either inconsistent with the national scheme or is unnecessarily duplicated, which makes it difficult for clinics that have to comply with the state legislation but which also, as part of their accreditation, must comply with the national code of practice. Without this national licence, they would be unable to provide any kind of assisted reproductive treatment services even in South Australia. The Minister for Health has told us that this amendment bill removes those inconsistencies and duplication with the national scheme. I hope that this will make clinical practice simpler for ART providers who can get on with the business of helping people realise their dreams of having a family.

These amendments will also ensure clinical practice is comparable with other jurisdictions. This will be a great relief to some families who, prior to these changes, would have had to travel interstate for treatment. The bill proposes to remove the requirement for new providers to demonstrate that there is a social need for treatment which cannot be met by existing licensees. This has been problematic and has arguably prevented new clinics providing treatment in South Australia. At this point in time, as I understand it, South Australia has only two providers: Repromed (which provides about 80 per cent of treatment) and Flinders Reproductive Medicine.

Under this proposal, assisted reproductive treatment providers in South Australia will need to demonstrate that they are fit and proper people, or a company, be nationally accredited to provide ART and also comply with the conditions imposed by the act and the Minister for Health. The register of clinics will also ensure that South Australians know who is providing ART services in South Australia and that they are nationally licensed and accredited to do so. This will make the provision of ART in South Australia transparent and accountable.

The amendments proposed under this bill also remove the current impediments to establishing a donor conception register so that persons born from donor gametes can have access to identifying information about their donor should they so choose—and the member for Fisher has spoken very eloquently on this fact just before me. It is my understanding that the current act prevents clinics disclosing the identify of the donor unless it is with the donor's consent.

Up until about five years ago, there was much secrecy surrounding assisted reproductive treatment. It has only been in the last five years or so that clinics have not accepted donors who did not want their identify disclosed to their offspring. I understand that all donors now sign a consent form allowing the clinic to provide their identifying information to offspring, if requested. However, the current act's strict confidentiality clauses prevent clinics from divulging this information to a third party, for example, a donor conception register, unless the donor has consented.

Those who donated previously did so under the guarantee that their information would be and would remain confidential. The Minister for Health has made it quite clear that the donor conception register is not retrospective. It would not be fair, in my opinion, to these donors who perhaps only donated because of the strict confidentiality requirements for the law to change now and for their identity to be disclosed without their consent. I believe that, in the past, record keeping and matching of donor and recipient information may not have been retained with this new knowledge in mind. It may be that, unless a donor comes forward and volunteers the information, some donor-conceived offspring may never know the origins of their conception or who their donor was—a sad but true fact.

Even though this section would not apply to prior donations and donors, there would still be the opportunity for donors to come forward and voluntarily put their details on such a register, but I do not believe that we as parliamentarians should be forcing their hands by making it a retrospective register. Once again, I congratulate the Minister for Health on introducing these amendments. If passed, they will bring South Australia's assisted reproductive treatment legislation into the 21st century. They will be responsive to technological developments in the dynamic area of medical speciality and will ensure that assisted reproductive treatments are provided responsibly and ethically to those South Australians who need ART to form a family. I indicate my support for this bill.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (16:36): I want to add a few comments in relation to this bill which, as the shadow minister indicated, is a conscience vote for those of us on this side of the house. I indicate, in broad terms, my support for the bill. However, there are a couple of things that I want to put on the record. Like many people, I know quite a number of couples who have needed what used to be called IVF assistance in order to arrange a pregnancy and the successful adding of a child to their family. In fact, it has often been the case that those very same people have subsequently gone on to have other children without the need for further assistance, and I am very pleased for those families.

I guess the fundamental question is always to what extent the state—and by that I mean the government, or the parliament—should interfere in what is essentially the running of a private business. The fundamental issue in the first instance is: will it be safe? I would presume that the regime is set up in such a way (and I have not looked at it in detail because I have only taken a very broad brush approach to this whole question) that a lot of the original licensing and the new provisions are aimed at ensuring the safety and propriety of what goes on. It seems to me that it is only sensible to bring the terminology into the common modern usage, so we will move to 'assisted reproductive technology'.

There are a couple of things that in some ways concern me about the motivation for this bill—although, as I said, I support it. It is indicated, for instance, that part of the rationale behind some of the amendments is to satisfy national competition policy principles. I have to say (and I believe I have said this on more than one occasion previously in this house in relation to other matters) that I do not see the value of national competition policy, because thus far all it seems to do is encourage Woolworths and Coles to become the two purveyors of everything in this fine land. I think we will only realise our folly when we end up with Woolworths and Coles running not only the supermarkets, liquor stores and petrol stations but also the optometrists, the pharmacists and, indeed, the lawyers in due course.

I have no time for this concept of national competition policy, because it seems to me to have been of vast detriment in a number of areas—for instance, barley and the single desk licensing system, which has now been dismantled in this state in favour of a so-called free system, which I think has been of no benefit and was not wanted by the industry. So, I have some problems about the idea of changing the law to meet national competition principles, although I recognise that this is a situation where basically a gun is held at every state government's head, in terms of forcing compliance, and if we must do it we must do it.

There are a number of ethical questions to be dealt with by the legislation and, in broad terms, I am quite comfortable with what this bill proposes to do. I know, for instance, that there was previously a requirement in relation to marital status. Marital status used to restrict access to this treatment to only married couples. It seems to me that that is somewhat outdated and that it is appropriate for it to be provided to infertile women, regardless of their marital status or sexuality.

I used to have quite a firm view that IVF treatment (as it was then called) should not be made available to other than married couples. Since being in this place I have changed my view about that after talking to some gay women, for instance, who said, 'The fact that we grew up to be gay does not mean that we grew up not expecting to have children, just like anyone else. The fact that we are gay by sexual preference doesn't mean that we don't long to be mothers, just like any other female.' In fact, my experience of gay mothers has been that they are extremely caring and genuine in their attempts to provide the very best possible life they can for their offspring.

I think we will have to grapple with a range of issues about gay parenting because of our failure thus far to recognise the non-child-bearing partner in a gay couple if they procure a pregnancy in some way and, having had the baby, the non-child-bearing partner is denied any rights at law as a parent, regardless of how long they might have been the parent to that child. I think we will have to grapple with some of those issues in the future, but they are not to be dealt with under this piece of legislation. However, as I said, I agree that it is appropriate for us to now make the treatment of assisted reproductive technology available to infertile women regardless of their marital status or sexuality.

I also agree with the idea of making available two other areas of this treatment. One is for the posthumous use of sperm (about which I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition already spoke at some length in her address), and the other is to enable access to future fertility. If, for instance, a young woman who would otherwise be fertile has to undergo cancer treatment, which could possibly affect her fertility, it seems to me that it is reasonable in those circumstances to allow that young woman to more or less bank fertile eggs (or, in the case of a male, fertile sperm) so they can later reproduce if it turns out that their cancer treatment means they cannot proceed to have children normally.

The main issue, though, that I wanted to look at is the idea of having a register for licensed providers. I think a couple of other speakers have mentioned the idea that it is becoming far more accepted that there is a need for people to be able to access information about their genetic background. Indeed, the member for Bright mentioned, in her address immediately prior to mine, that those who donated previously—that is, males who donated sperm—did so on the basis that their donation was guaranteed to be confidential.

I notice that, in fact, there is a capacity for them to overcome that provision for confidentiality entering into the register. I would suggest that, in fact, it might even be appropriate for everyone who is on the register under the confidential provision to get a letter inviting them to do so and explaining the reasons why they might like to contemplate that, without putting any pressure on them.

I agree with the member for Bright that they should not be pressured to disclose if they do not want to, but I think it would be appropriate for them to be approached on the basis that it is quite a rational thing. They want to be guaranteed that they will not have any liability, because that is what they are mostly worried about, that if it is not confidential they might face some future claim for maintenance, and so on.

Provided they have that guarantee, I expect that for quite a large percentage of the people who presumably, for altruistic reasons in the first place, donated their sperm, it would be appropriate for them to get a letter agreeing that their information is to be made available, so that the person who is now perhaps a young adult can access information about their genetic heritage.

I think that the deputy leader touched on this in her speech, that there is still the position of the people who choose the 'do it yourself method', who do not go through a registered provider. It seems to me highly likely, again, that those people, if encouraged, would put their details on a register; but I do not think it would be appropriate for us as legislators to try to force that to occur, because you would never police it, you would never manage it. Many women turn up, even now, who do not disclose who the father of the baby is. Indeed, a French politician recently gave birth to a baby, and she has adamantly refused to disclose who the father of the child is.

The Hon. R.B. Such: They may not know.

Mrs REDMOND: As member for Fisher points out, there may be some women who do not know who the father of the child is, and that is perfectly possible. There may be some women who are mistaken as to who the father of the child is and, indeed, we know that there are women who rely on the presumption of the Family Law Act that, if you are in a marriage, the father of the child is the husband, and it subsequently turns out that it is not.

Many circumstances can arise. My expectation, however, is that most people who want to have a baby and who are going to put themselves through the process of what we will call the 'do it yourself method' are concerned about the welfare of their child and may well be willing to put the information onto a register so that that child, in the future, can access information about their genetic heritage.

However, as I said, I do not see that, as a state, we could legislate to make that compulsory, because it would simply be an unworkable and unenforceable piece of legislation. I think that the best that we can do is offer that possibility. I expect that the take-up rate of that sort of register would be even higher than, for example, our organ donor register, where we encourage people to register. I do think it is worth considering including that. I note that the legislation seems to talk about just the licensed providers. I think the licensed providers would like everybody to have to go on the register, but I do not think that is workable.

I have a bit of a question mark about the need to license and to have the details of absolutely everybody who is involved in the provision of the service. I do not see why you would not simply licence the business that is doing the providing and allow them to have their staff appropriately selected. I am sure they could come up with some sort of code of conduct, code of practice, or something like that, or some guarantee of probity in the selection of their staff. I do not know that it should be necessary to extend the details about everyone else who is to be involved in a licensed provider of these services. However, in essence, I believe that the basis of the bill is correct.

I do not have any moral issue or difficulty with the whole idea of assisted reproductive technology. I welcome bringing it into the 21st century in terms of where we are going with the way we operate these things. I wish the bill good passage through this house and the other place.

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (16:51): It gives me enormous pleasure and no small degree of personal satisfaction to speak in support of this important legislation. This bill, which will amend the Reproductive Technology (Clinical Practices) Act 1988, is an important step towards ensuring that the needs of South Australians requiring assisted reproductive treatment continue to be met through changing times and circumstances.

More than 20 years ago in-vitro fertilisation became a medical possibility, and governments around the world were consequently faced with the social responsibility of determining the fundamental question of who should be able to become parents. The South Australian government enacted the Reproductive Technology Act and in so doing set strict limits on the use of this new technology.

The act required a clinic which provided assisted reproductive technology services to be licensed by the Minister for Health and, as a condition of that licence, to abide by regulations issued under the act and guidelines issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Within the overarching requirement, the reproductive technology procedures could not be carried out except for the benefit of married couples. The act then further limited access to the circumstances when either the husband or wife, or both, appeared to be infertile, or there appeared to be a risk that a genetic defect could be transmitted to a child conceived naturally.

However, this legislation is now over 20 years old; therefore, these questions must now we asked: does it hold up as well today as it did then; is it adaptable to changes in medical and social standards; and does it unduly limit circumstances that today seem fair and reasonable? I argue that the current act is deficient in all these respects.

First, assisted reproduction is no longer the cutting edge technology it once was, and medical advances continue to be made that make it possible for more and more couples to conceive children. However, the act does not always recognise these advances, and it constrains couples to the definitions and procedures of two decades ago.

Secondly, assisted reproduction is now considered an accepted and viable means by which to create a family. While there will always be detractors who assert that assisted reproduction is against God's will and unnatural, I believe that the vast majority of the community is of the view that it is entirely appropriate that a couple who longs to have a child but cannot, for whatever reason, is entitled to assistance with that dream.

So, the issue before us today is: how do we accommodate for these shifts while maintaining the strict regulation that reproductive technology demands? Today, I wish primarily to discuss the reformation of the provisions relating to eligibility and access. The first matter I wish to address in the bill before us, albeit briefly, is the deletion of the marital requirement for access to assisted reproductive treatment.

The current act limits access to married couples. However, this was challenged in the South Australian Supreme Court in 1996 by Gail Pearce, a single woman who claimed that the act discriminated against her on the ground of marital status and was therefore inconsistent with the commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act. The Supreme Court agreed with Ms Pearce and determined that the marital status provisions were invalid and did not apply.

Since the time of the Pearce judgment, marital status has not been a criterion for eligibility, and infertile women, regardless of marital status or sexuality, have been able to access reproductive technology treatment from South Australian clinics. While this amendment is therefore symbolic, it is still important. I am firmly of the belief, and I have spoken about it in this place before, that removing a discriminatory provision from the statute book, even if it is not applied in practice, can only be a good thing.

I also wish to address eligibility for assisted reproductive treatment. Currently, people may access ART only if they appear to be infertile or there is a risk of passing on a serious genetic condition. I believe that these criteria are too narrow and do not take into account circumstances that are consistent with the standards of today. Infertility will remain an eligibility criterion under the proposed legislation.

While we are not debating this issue today, I think it is worth while noting that South Australia is now the only state to retain this as a bar to access to ART following Victoria's move late last year to remove fertility as an impediment to access. However, I am sure that, given the inevitable and the desire for national consistency, this issue will fight another day.

The bill seeks to extend access to ART in three circumstances. The current act limits eligibility to those at risk of transmitting a genetic defect. This criterion, therefore, does not and cannot take into account existing or possible emerging infective conditions, which can, of course, be just as devastating, and an obvious example is HIV. Is it right to deny an HIV-positive person access to this treatment, when they have taken the responsible course of seeking reproductive assistance, just because HIV does not fit into the definition of 'genetic defect'?

The irony is that sperm washing, which is a viable option for conception when the man is HIV positive, is available in South Australian clinics, but it is restricted under the legislation to infertile couples. Under this bill, clinics will be able to offer sperm washing and future medical treatment to fertile men at risk of passing on serious infection. The bill also extend access to ART in any other circumstances provided by the regulations.

In his second reading explanation, the Minister for Health outlined that one such issue under consideration was the ability to access treatment for future in fertility when it is caused by a medical condition or treatment. An example of this is a person who is diagnosed with cancer and could be rendered infertile by either the disease or the chemotherapy and radiation required to fight it. I do not think many in the community would deny that person the right to have children in the future, but that is exactly what the current legislation does. By limiting access on the ground of fertility, clinics are not allowed to harvest eggs or create embryos, because the person requesting that service is not actually infertile at the time.

So, at the most devastating moment of their life, they must face not only their own mortality but also the realisation that, potentially, they will never become parents. This is an absurd situation, and it demonstrates the difficulty and inequity of a blanket criterion of infertility without taking into account mitigating and reasonable circumstances. I am very pleased that this situation will change and that people who may be rendered infertile by a medical condition or treatment can plan in advance and utilise ART if needed.

The final extension of access proposed by the bill is one about which I feel very strongly and for which I have fought very hard, concerning as it does my constituents and friends Sheree Blake and her late husband, Lee. Lee Blake was a delightful young man whom I had known for many years, since the day he first burst onto the scene as an exceptionally talented young player at Norwood Football Club.

Lee had the world at his feet, with confidence, attitude and a cheeky smile that lit up his face. It can therefore be appreciated how devastated we all were when he was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia at the age of 17. It was a cruel and tragic blow that impacted upon a life brimming with promise.

At that time, we organised a fundraiser for Lee to assist with his medical costs, and I remember proudly purchasing for him a signed No. 14 jersey belonging to Garry McIntosh, as Garry was his favourite player. In fact, it was Garry who sent Lee off to have tests when he noticed something wrong with him at training sessions—the young man who could normally do anything suddenly seemed to have lost his spark.

We were all thrilled when Lee went into remission following a bone marrow transplant in 2005. Terribly, the disease came back in 2008 even more aggressively than ever and, tragically, two months after he married the love of his life, Sheree. Lee decided against medical treatment and spent the final weeks of his life surrounded by his family and friends. Lee died on 10 May 2008, and, with hundreds of others, I attended his funeral at Norwood Oval.

In early June, Sheree approached me asking for my help. The circumstances relevant to this bill are as follows. Prior to undergoing chemotherapy at his initial diagnosis at age 18, Lee had his semen stored for future use. When Lee and Sheree decided to have a child, they both received expert counselling. Lee provided specific written consent for his wife to use his sperm to become pregnant with his child after his death. In short, they had met all the criteria outlined in sections 6.15 and 6.16 of the NHMRC Ethical Guidelines, which specify that clinics must not facilitate the use of gametes to achieve pregnancy unless all the following conditions are met:

a dying person has left clearly expressed and witnessed directions consenting to the use of his or her gametes;

the prospective parents receive counselling about the consequences of such use;

advice is sought from a clinical ethics committee;

an appropriate period of time has passed before attempting conception; and

counselling is available to work through these issues.

Everything seemed in order until Sheree learnt that South Australian clinics were not able to assist her in becoming pregnant, despite the express consent of her husband. This was because Sheree did not meet the criteria of eligibility under the act because she was fertile. Sheree was legally able to inseminate herself with Lee's sperm at home or take the sperm interstate to be inseminated by a clinic, but she was not able to be medically assisted in her home state. Again, this is an example of the blanket of infertility smothering cases which, on their merits, would appear to be wholly justified.

I stress to point out, however, that the example which I have mentioned does not detract from the tenor of the act that only infertile couples should have access to ART services. They are not examples of fertile people wishing to, for whatever reason, have a child and trying to circumvent the established principle. Rather, they are specific examples—safe fertility, future fertility, posthumous fertility—whereby circumstances have conspired against them so that they are not able to be a parent, despite being fertile at the time access to ART treatment is sought. These mitigating circumstances must be allowed.

Following my discussions with Sheree, I wrote to minister Hill at the end of June. The minister responded to me that he had referred the issue to the SA Council on Reproductive Technology and that legal advice was being sought as to the correct interpretation of the legislation.

During the time between that advice and the introduction of this bill, I kept in contact with Sheree, who was extremely understanding about the situation and the fact that the process would take some considerable time. She was, nevertheless, very thankful and grateful that her situation was being investigated. The end result is before us today, and it is a clear example of democracy working at its best and government getting it right. It should serve as a reminder to any constituent that contacting their MP is not a waste of time, and that we can address the needs of our community.

What Sheree has for her belief in the system is a bill which makes express provision—not only for her situation, but others—by removing the requirement that the recipient of the posthumous sperm be infertile. There are still strict controls in place. The NHMRC guidelines must still be met, along with the legislative conditions that the donor must have died; the donor's semen was collected before the death; the donor consented to the use of the semen; and that the recipient was the donor's partner. It all makes sense, and I am extremely proud to have played a small part in helping Sheree's dream to bear her husband's children become a reality.

Sheree gave me her permission to quote from the eulogy that was delivered at Lee's funeral:

You will live on in the hearts and minds of many, and God help us all, soon enough there will be little Blakeys running around and those children will be told every day just what an amazing man their daddy was.

That says it all. The gratitude and joy in Sheree's voice when I broke the news to her that we were putting this bill before parliament was reward enough, and a reminder to me of why we are in this place. Sheree became very emotional and we both cried as that day happened to be her first wedding anniversary.

This bill takes important steps in ensuring that assisted reproductive treatment in South Australia is progressive and relevant. I hope that, as more and more advances are made, and more and more stereotypes are shattered—and undoubtedly they will be—we do not have to wait 20 years until we look at this issue again. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (17:03): I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. I think this is a conscience vote for us all and, as I have said before, debates on conscience issues are usually more interesting than other debates, because you get people speaking their mind and from their heart, not necessarily the party line.

I thank all members who have taken the time to express their views in this chamber. I think the majority of speakers were in favour of the legislation. A number of issues were raised, but I think generally—perhaps even amongst those who do not like the idea of IVF—it is accepted that this legislation is largely administrative, bringing the management of IVF into this century.

This legislation really extends in two ways the operations of IVF. First, it allows posthumous use of sperm that has been stored—and the member for Norwood has spoken eloquently on that subject. That matter, of course, was the subject of debate in relation to a private member's bill put by the opposition some months ago, so I will not canvass those issues. I think that it was almost unanimously agreed to at that time, so I take it that it is not a contentious issue for this house.

The second area is to extend the availability of IVF to fertile people who might have a viral condition such as HIV/AIDS which could be passed on to their children. So, that seems to be an eminently sensible provision that will protect the public and protect individual children from the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS, or some other virus, from their father. I think that is a very sensible addition to the remit of IVF providers.

The remainder of the legislation is really just making the arrangements contemporary. When this legislation was first introduced 20-odd years ago, it was novel, the technologies were unknown and there were a lot of issues and concerns about how they operated. So, we had a very heavy-handed or a very controlling set of regulations around it, which was appropriate given the newness of the procedures. But after 20-odd years of experience, it is time to take that heavy-handed approach off and allow a lighter touch. There is also a national registration set of protocols which guide what happens.

Another area worth commenting on is that this will allow greater competition in South Australia because, at the moment, we are restricted to only two providers. A fair bit was said by the deputy leader, and other speakers, about competition. I guess people can make up their own mind, but it seems to me wise to allow broader competition. Why should we restrict this area of medical practice from competition when every other area that I can think of is open to competition. If businesses want to establish themselves with the appropriate set of skills and the appropriate personnel, why should they not be able to do so in our state?

The final point that I refer to is the point made by the member for Fisher, who I think argued quite passionately—and I understand the point very well—that someone who is born as a result of a sperm donation some time ago does not, and may never, know who their father is, which must be very frustrating. It must raise a whole lot of questions about identity, and I can imagine it is a difficult thing to have to live with.

However, as other members have said, I do not accept that those who in the past made that donation in the sure knowledge that it would never be revealed should be put in a situation where that is risked. They did it in good faith at a time when the circumstances were different from the way we operate today. It would be unreasonable for somebody who is now 50 or 60 to be put in the position where their identity is suddenly revealed.

We do not know what circumstances they are now in, they may have a conservative family life and that bit of news might be quite devastating. While I understand, accept and feel empathy towards the people born through this process, I do not support undoing what was done in good faith all those years ago.

The legislation will, as I understand it, allow for voluntary identification by donors, and if the information is available which will allow them to identify the recipient of their donation then we could help facilitate that through this provision.

The advice I have is that in days gone by when sperm donations were made it was fairly informal and we are not even certain that on every occasion the identity of the donor was recorded, and even if those identities were recorded we are not sure that we know to whom the donation was given. So, there are practical issues as well as policy issues as to why this would not work very easily.

I am not sure that writing to the individuals would be such a welcome event, because it might tend to identify the donors to other persons, such as family members, and they may not necessarily want that to occur. However, the publicity which could be generated around this process, once the legislation is through, might bring forward some people, and I am happy to join with the member for Fisher to call on sperm donors to come forward and identify themselves, if they so choose.

The final point is the issue raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the home-based fertilisation of people who are fertile but who do not have a male partner, who have a donation of sperm which is administered through amateur mechanisms at home. The deputy leader suggested that perhaps the donors in those circumstances could be put on the registration process too. I certainly have no objection to that.

My understanding is that the legislation is broad enough to allow that to happen without any amendment. I will check that once we get into committee, if the deputy leader wants to ask me a particular question about it. I thank all members of the house for their contributions and I am happy to move into committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I move:

Page 4, line 4 [inserted section 4A]—Delete 'woman' and substitute: person

I move to take out the gender reference in the clause, so that the welfare of a person is considered. The advice that we have had is that men are also affected by this process and their interests should be considered too. I happily agree with that, and I understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has indicated that she supports that, so I thank her for that.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I move:

Page 9—

Line 16 [clause 8, inserted section 15(1)]—Delete 'The Minister may' and substitute:

Subject to this section, the Minister must

After line 19—Insert:

(1a) Subsection (1) applies in relation to assisted reproductive treatment provided in accordance with this act and resulting in the birth of a child whether the treatment was provided, or the birth occurred, before or after the commencement of this section.

(1b) However, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to assisted reproductive treatment that was provided before the commencement of this section—

(a) if the donor of the relevant human reproductive material expressly requested or directed that his or her identity be kept confidential and he or she has not revoked that request or direction; or

(b) if the information required to be contained in the register under subsection (2) in relation to the donor is not reasonably available to the minister; or

(c) in any other circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

Line 20 [clause 8, inserted section 15(2)]—Delete 'If the Minister does keep the donor conception register, the' and substitute:

The donor conception

After line 33 [clause 8, after inserted section 15(4)]—Insert:

(4a) Despite a preceding subsection (including subsection (1b)), if the Minister is satisfied that it is relevant to the welfare of a person born as a consequence of an assisted reproductive treatment (the relevant person), the Minister may—

(a) include the name of a donor of human reproductive material used in, or in relation to, the treatment on the register for the purposes of the operation of this section (even if to do so is contrary to an express request or direction of the donor as to confidentiality); and

(b) release the name of the donor, and any other information relevant to the welfare of the relevant person, to the relevant person.

Page 10, lines 4 and 5 [clause 8, inserted section 15(8)]—Delete subsection (8)

I indicate to the house that I am going to move these amendments standing in my name en bloc. The latter ones are consequential on the earlier ones, in any event. I appreciate the minister's comment and the fact that this bill is a step forward for people like Damian Adams, who has raised the issue of finding out who his father is, or was. I accept that he will not be pleased with the, I think, inevitable outcome that these amendments will not be supported and that therefore I am not going to divide on them formally.

It will also not please the Donor Conception Support Group of Australia, whose advocate, Caroline Lorbach, contacted me to support, basically, a provision along the lines reflected in my amendment. Nevertheless, as the minister stated, I believe this bill is a step forward and one would hope that those who were sperm donors in the past may feel willing to, in effect, come forward and allow themselves to be identified. I can understand why people such as Damian feel a sense of emptiness and frustration at not knowing who their father is or was. This bill is a progressive move and it does allow for some movement in respect of finding out who your father is or was, if that person was a sperm donor.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I addressed this issue in my response to the second reading contributions. I indicate for the record that the government does not support the amendments. However, I am sympathetic to the needs of the person and, once the legislation is through, we will look at how we can establish a voluntary registration system so that those who did donate sperm in the past can identify themselves. Whether or not it is possible to then identify who was produced as a result of a donation is problematic for the reasons I have indicated earlier.

I am certainly sympathetic to the point that the honourable member made, but I think it would be unreasonable to place any risk on the head of a donor, who decades ago gave in good faith anonymously, that at some stage in the future their name might be released. I think that would be unfair and incredibly burdensome for those individuals, despite the strength of the passion and feeling of those who have been produced by this means. I can understand and empathise with their feelings, but I think the right thing to do is not to accept the amendments.

Ms CHAPMAN: Other members may make a contribution on these amendments, but I indicate that, having considered the amendments, I support the minister's position on this issue and will not be supporting the same.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I support the member for Fisher's amendments. I do so aware of its being a very grave thing for the parliament to legislate to undo, effectively, a contract or understanding that someone making a donation has done so anonymously. However, I draw parallels with a decision that the parliament made some years ago with regard to adoption, where relinquishing parents also understood that their identities were not to be disclosed when they relinquished children. In that case the parliament, I think rightly, made the decision that the rights of the adoptee overrode those undertakings.

Likewise, children born of reproductive technology have a right to know where they have come from. That right overrides the considerations for the donor who has donated, as the minister says, in good faith on the understanding that that donation was anonymous.

In terms of practical considerations, and not just merely knowing where you have come from and what your biological parentage is, there is also a right for children to know the existence of half siblings. When this area of fertility treatment was first entered into, it is of concern that little thought was given by the clinicians to potentially creating many half siblings that would not be known to the child being brought into existence by the use of this technology and the danger—however remote it might be—of marrying a half sibling or entering into a relationship with a half sibling and the devastating consequences of that.

Finally, the other consideration is the right of children to know their family history for the purposes of the prevention and management of inherited diseases. Whilst I take the minister's point about how grave it is that this parliament should legislate to remove the anonymity of donors—where that is possible—nonetheless, I think the considerations of the children born of these methods outweigh those considerations. I support the member for Fisher's amendment.

Mr KENYON: I also rise to support the amendment. The best argument I can put is that, if I were in the position of a person conceived through this technology, I would want to know my history. I should confess to the house that it would take me a long time to work up the courage to make contact, I think, with the person once I knew, but I would like to know and I would like to have that option. The point made by the Speaker about the adoption amendments we did a few years ago are relevant. It is a good analogy, but mainly I think that if I were in that position I would want to know. I do not think it is an unreasonable thing.

I understand there might be some wariness by people who did donate sperm and did so under the condition of anonymity, but I do not know that it is necessarily the worst thing in the world to be contacted by your child. The worst case scenario, I suppose, is that you would simply reject any overtures. That would be a distressing situation but, at least, they had the option. I think that the house should support this amendment moved by the member for Fisher, and certainly I will be.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I thank members and I understand their strong views about this. The member for Newland said that if he were in that position he would want to know. Well, I can tell members that I would too. I understand that. However, our role here is to create good policy which balances a range of interests, not about what we personally would want to do. If I were a donor father 30 years ago would I want to know? I am not sure that I would. It is a hard call. We are not here to say what our emotions tell us. I think that we are here to try to set up a structure which is a proper structure.

We can do that into the future, but this legislation will make absolutely certain that anyone who donates genetic material will be recorded and the information about them will be given to that child at some stage—when the child is of age, I guess. That is their right. For the last five years we have been doing that as a matter of practicality. For five years only donors who have been prepared to be identified have been accepted for donation. For the last five years that has been happening. In any event, information that is held about the donors through the IVF process is provided in a de-identified way to the receiver of that information.

As long as IVF has been going information about the medical condition—the personality, and so on—is given to the recipient of the donated material if available. So, that has already occurred. I suppose we are really talking only about the IVF procedures, but if we go back to other donation processes who knows what is held and what is known. I think that the balance is pretty right. I am happy to think of ways that we can encourage donors to agree to have their name put forward but this would be only if they wanted to. What would be the benefit for the child?

In many cases these would not be children, they would be adults now. In many cases it would just be to satisfy idle curiosity—maybe not idle curiosity, that is the wrong way of putting it. It would just be to satisfy the burning curiosity the individual has about who their genetic father is, but they are not their father in any legal sense and they never were the father in any legal sense, and I think that is the confusion into which the member for Newland was straying. 'I would want to know who my father is.' Your father is whoever your birth certificate says it is. The genetic material that was used was donated by someone, given freely and no emotional, physical or any other attachment went with that.

It was material that was provided to someone as an act of love, an act of compassion, or whatever, so that a woman who was infertile could have a child. That was the basis of that gift. They were never in any legal sense the father. This is different, I think, from the adoption legislation to which the Speaker referred, because this is where a child has been produced through a natural act and has legal parents—or a legal parent—who makes a decision to give that child up for adoption. So, a different set of relationships was there in the first place. It is a natural process—the child was actually born of that person.

The legislation, of course, sets huge limitations on who can be given that information, and section 27B goes through all of those. For example, section 27B(1) states:

A person adopted before the commencement of this Act may lodge with the Chief Executive a direction that information in the Chief Executive's possession that would enable the person to be traced not be disclosed.

So, it works that way; and section 27B(2) states:

A birth parent of a person adopted prior to the commencement of this Act may [similarly] lodge information...

So there are ways of stopping it there, but that is a different kind of process, a different kind of relationship. We are talking about someone years ago who went in, spent a few minutes, produced a sample and that was the end of their involvement in it. It is vastly different. I think it would be grossly unfair to place a burden on the head of those people that their identity will be given as a result of a minister, a judge or someone deciding that, on balance, it was the right thing to do no matter how strongly the recipients feel. I accept the passion with which the position is put but, again, I reiterate my reasons for not accepting it.

The CHAIR: Is the member for Fisher responding or closing?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I am asking a question. It will be my last question. I know it is a difficult question, but does the minister have any idea of numbers of people either recently or not so recently who may have resulted from sperm donation? Is there any evidence of numbers?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I will just check with my advisers, but I understand that approximately one child in every classroom in South Australia is likely to have been born through IVF processes. Certainly, over a recent period, they have a right to be informed as to who their father was, and, prior to the last five years, they have a right to de-identify material about personality and genetic background, health issues and so on.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: In the case of IVF, it could well be a known donor, but do we have any indication in the case of the anonymous sperm donors?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I am sorry, I have further advice. For most recipients, of course, the father is already known because they are the husband or the partner of the person who is the recipient. I am told that, out of about 3,000 cycles per year undertaken at one clinic, only 100 cycles involved the use of donor eggs and 70 the use of donor sperm. So out of 3,000, 0.02, or whatever it is.

Amendments negatived.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question relates to the registration procedure, and you may have covered this in your response when I was absent for a short time. Currently, only two clinics are licensed and under this clause we will move to this new registration procedure. How do we cover those persons who are currently employed by the two licensed clinics because the transitional clause is later?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I will try to answer this and you can come back to me if I do not satisfy it. As I understand it, a licensed person is in fact the company that is being referred to, it is a legal entity. What is your problem?

Ms CHAPMAN: This new registration procedure comes into play under this clause. Under schedule 1—Transitional provisions—clause 1(1) states:

A person who, immediately before the commencement of this clause, held a licence under part 3...will be taken to be registered.

My point is that there is no such person.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: A person is a company.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is 'person' defined as a company as well?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Yes, under the Acts Interpretation Act.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr KENYON: The points that I wish to raise about clause 9 relate specifically to the amendments that will allow the semen of a dead person to be used. I outlined my opposition to that in my second reading contribution, but I simply reiterate the points of the co-modification of children, that is, 'I have a right to a child.' That is slowly filtering through our society and it seems to be overriding the rights of the child, and, in this case, the right of a child to a father. I also think it is bad legislation to make a law for one person, which is essentially how these amendments came about. These amendments came about because of the case that has been publicly aired, and everyone knows about it.

It is not a good idea to be making law to suit one person, and essentially that is what we are doing in this case. We are deliberately entering into a situation where we will create a child—a person, as they grow older— knowing that they will never have a father, that their father was dead even before they were conceived. Many people point out that there are many instances of this occurring in life for whatever reason, for example, through accident. There are plenty of cases of children being born without a father because their father was killed after they were conceived, but that is not a deliberate course of action.

I would like to note my opposition to this on two counts: first, the best interests of the child, the fundamental principle of the bill; and, secondly, I think it is a bad idea to make law for one person.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I thank the member for his comments. I know that he is not moving anything, but I just respond. Of course, the case that brought this into the public domain is one case, but I am advised that other cases exist where similar feelings are held but they have not been put into the public domain. So, a range of people would have this as an opportunity, I suppose.

This is a terrible area of public policy because we are dealing with people who are grieving, dealing with loss and all sorts of difficult issues. I guess what we can do as legislators is try to create a framework so that, in a sensible way, those issues can be resolved. The advice I have is that it is probably a provision that is likely to be rarely used; that is, that once a person has worked through it, they may not take up the opportunity, but the fact that the opportunity is there helps them through the grieving processes, anyway. However, if they choose to take it up, a whole range of provisions are placed upon this measure.

It is codified pretty clearly what has to happen in order for a woman to be able to use the sperm of her late husband or partner. Obviously, he would have had to agree and she would have to agree, and a whole range of other processes are in the code. I do not think we have done this in any over the top way. I think it is a fairly cautious way of allowing a woman to have this opportunity after her partner has died.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Members of the committee will know fairly well that on issues such as these I take a reasonably conservative view. I have listened to the arguments put forward, particularly those from the member for Newland, and on some of these issues the member for Newland and I are not too far away from one another. I listened to his argument about where a couple may look to have a child and, for whatever reason, the father dies as a result of an accident, which is not a deliberate act as described by the member. However, I give the example where perhaps the male in a relationship has a terminal illness and he and his female partner know full well that he will die but they look to have a baby and the baby is born after the father has passed away. That is a deliberate act to procreate and produce a child after the father has left this earth.

So, I think it is a reasonable proposition to accept that what the legislation presents (and I think the minister has outlined it quite well) is that this is a difficult issue to put into a format of public policy. However, it is to provide an opportunity. I understand what the member for Newland said, that it is really creating a situation for one person, but the minister has explained quite well that it is not only for one person and that a number of women would be in a similar situation to the lady who has been publicly identified in these matters.

It is a difficult situation. As I said, on matters such as this I have taken a pretty conservative stance but, on balance, I think that this provides a reasonable opportunity for a woman to have a baby. I do not know if any of us in this place has experienced the emotions and circumstances that would be involved in cases such as these. I certainly have not, and neither has anyone in my family that I know of. There have been deaths of males in my family, and the relationships they have been in have produced children, but those deaths have been as a result of a terminal illness or an accident. I think that quite a reasonable case has been presented and that we should support this clause.

The CHAIR: Before inviting anyone else to speak, I point out that we have a procedural problem. Clause 8 has been agreed to. Clause 8 goes all the way from page 4 to page 10. When I called clause 9 I was, in fact, calling for interest in clause 9, which is about record keeping, so I found the contribution of the member for Newland quite baffling. If there are others who wish to speak in relation to new section 9 of clause 8, it is appropriate for anyone so wishing to speak to move that clause 8 be reconsidered so that other matters in relation to clause 8 can be explored. Otherwise, procedurally, we should be moving on to clause 9 on page 10.

Mr KENYON: I apologise. It is my inexperience showing there. I am happy to move it if anyone wants to speak.

The CHAIR: If there is nothing further, clause 8 is completed. Are there any matters for consideration with respect to clause 9 on page 10? If not, the question is that the clause stands as printed.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (10 to 14) passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I wish to thank members for their contribution. I particularly want to thank the officers involved. This has been a very long process. The deputy leader said that it had been long and I agree with her, but a lot of issues have been worked through. I particularly want to thank Kathy Williams, Rebecca Horgan, Gillian Lewis Coles, Jean Murray and Adele Popow from the department who have worked on this, Mark Herbst and Richard Dennis of parliamentary counsel. I also wish to thank the sector: the SA Council on Reproductive Technology has given me very good advice, Repromed, the Flinders Reproductive Medicine Unit and the Research Centre for Reproductive Health. I want to thank all those individuals who have worked on this and all members of the house for their contributions.

Ms CHAPMAN: I wish to indicate to the minister the appreciation of a number of members from this side who have taken the opportunity to attend a joint briefing with a number of professional and experienced speakers to present the background to this legislation. I note that a number of people have worked on the drafting and development and, in particular, the overall review of the bill and I wish to express my appreciation with respect to them.

I conclude by extending my personal thanks to Professor Rob Norman, who has advised me on a number of these matters. His association historically with Repromed (which, as I indicated, is in my electorate) is something that I value and certainly his counsel has been most appreciated. I also wish to place on the record my appreciation to the directors group who, as I indicated earlier, provided advice from Sydney and took the opportunity to travel to advise us on, I think, some fairly sensible possible amendments.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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