HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TREATMENT (EQUALITY OF ACCESS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 February 2012.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (17:36): I rise today to support the Hon. Ian Hunter's Assisted Reproductive Treatment (Equality of Access) Amendment Bill. Owing to family circumstances, of which this house is well aware, it is an area of law in which I take particular interest and a bill which I support passionately. In researching this issue, I understand that South Australia is one of three states that has specific legislation regulating assisted reproduction treatment clinics. As part of their accreditation processes, all ART clinics in Australia must adhere to a code of practice of assisted reproductive technology units, which was revised in May 2008.

This code was developed by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee of the Fertility Society of Australia. Part of the accreditation process also involves compliance with government laws and guidelines concerning the practice of ART, and the ART guidelines are included in this requirement. The code of practice also sets professional and laboratory standards for ART clinical practice.

The legislation in the three states that regulate ART are: the South Australian Reproductive Technology Act 1988, the Western Australian Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991, and, the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008. These states have each established a regulatory body which issues licences to clinics that provide ART services. In the event of anomalies between the relevant state acts and the code of practice, the state acts take precedence.

The South Australian Reproductive Technology Act 1988, when originally introduced, sought to regulate access to ART, determined in consultation with the South Australian Council of Reproductive Technology established under the act. Amendments moved in this house saw the act limit access to ART under section 13 of the act, which states, in section 13(3), that a licence will be subject to:

(b) a condition preventing the application of artificial fertilisation procedures except for the benefit of married couples in the following circumstances—

(i) The husband or wife (or both) appear to be infertile; or

(ii) there appears to be a risk that a genetic defect would be transmitted to a child....

Subsection (4) of section 13 of the act provides:

(4) In subsection (3)—

'married couple' includes two people who are not married but who are cohabiting as husband and wife and who—

(a) have cohabited continually as husband and wife for the immediate preceding five years, or

(b) have, during the immediate preceding six years, cohabited as husband and wife, for periods aggregating at least five years.

Quite blatantly the act at that time specifically excluded the provision of ART services to single women and lesbian couples. The 1996 decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia in Pearce v South Australian Health Commission unanimously held the provisions of the Reproductive Technology Act 1988 discriminated on the ground of marital status and was thus inconsistent with the commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Section 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 makes it unlawful for a person to refuse to provide a service to another on the ground of, amongst others, a person's marital status.

Of course, by virtue of section 103 of the Australian Constitution, where a state act is inconsistent with a commonwealth act, the state act is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. The Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 1988 was subsequently amended and now stipulates under section 9 that any conditions for a person's registration to provide ART services must include, in part, the conditions stated below. Section 9, Conditions of registration, subsection (1) states:

(c) a condition preventing the provision of assisted reproductive treatment except in the following circumstances:

(i) if a woman who would be the mother of any child born as a consequence of the assisted reproduction treatment is, or appears to be, infertile;

(ii) if a man who is living with a woman (on a genuine domestic basis as her husband) who would be the mother of any child born as a consequence of the assisted reproductive treatment is, or appears to be, infertile;

(iii) if there appears to be a risk that a serious genetic defect, serious disease or serious illness would be transmitted to a child conceived naturally;

So we now have a situation where ART services are limited to a woman who is, or appears to be, infertile. You might ask what the problem is with that condition. It is clear that these provisions discriminate against the woman who does not appear to meet the test of who appears to be infertile. Generally, this is single women or lesbian couples.

One needs to ask: what is the reasoning behind this discrimination? I suspect it is based around people's moral or religious views as to what constitutes a family. Some ignorantly say that having families headed by same-sex couples will undermine the family unit. That view is bigotry personified and was not supported by the 2011 inquiry of the Social Development Committee of this parliament. That committee stated:

The committee notes that much of the research literature referred to in the Inquiry was previously examined and summarised by the Victorian Law Reform Commission in its report Assisted Reproductive Technology and Adoption: Final Report. In considering this research, the Commission concluded that there is sound evidence that children with same-sex parents have positive outcomes and are not disadvantaged in these family structures. The committee supports the conclusion drawn by the Commission in its review of relevant research. It is satisfied that the quality of relationships within families is the key factor in determining outcomes for children and not the parents' sexuality or marital status.

I agree with the Social Development Committee's view on this point. A person's sexual orientation has absolutely no bearing on their ability to raise children in a loving, supportive and nurturing environment.

One of the most compelling reasons that I have heard on the need to advocate on behalf of this issue is a speech from a 19-year old young American from Iowa, Zach Wahls, to a committee of the Iowa State Legislature in February 2011. The hearing was in relation to a Republican initiative to ban gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in that state.

I understand, as some might say in internet jargon, that this speech has gone viral. I can certainly understand why. Zach Wahls, who was raised by his biological mother, Dr Terry Wahls, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Iowa and her legal spouse, Jackie, said the following. To save time here I seek leave to insert Mr Wahls' speech into Hansard, otherwise I will read it.

The PRESIDENT: You will have to read it.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: It states:

Good evening, Mr Chairman, my name is Zach Wahls. I'm a sixth-generation Iowan and an engineering student at the University of Iowa, and I was raised by two women. My biological mom, Terry, told her grandparents that she was pregnant, that the artificial insemination had worked, and they wouldn't even acknowledge it.

It wasn't until I was born and they succumbed to my infantile cuteness that they broke down and told her that they were thrilled to have another grandson. Unfortunately, neither of them lived to see her marry her partner, Jackie, of 15 years when they wed in 2009. My younger sister and only sibling was born in 1994. We actually have the same anonymous donor so we're full siblings, which is really cool for me.

I guess the point is our family really isn't so different from any other Iowa family. You know, when I'm home we go to church together, we eat dinner, we go on vacations. But, you know, we have our hard times too, we get in fights...

Actually my mom, Terry, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2000. It is a devastating disease that puts her in a wheelchair. So we've had our struggles. But, you know, we're Iowans. We don't expect anyone to solve our problems for us. We'll fight our own battles. We just hope for equal and fair treatment from our government.

Being a student at the University of Iowa, the topic of same-sex marriage comes up quite frequently in classroom discussions...The question always comes down to, 'Can gays even raise kids?'...The conversation gets quiet for a moment because most people don't really have any answer. And then I raise my hand and say, 'Actually, I was raised by a gay couple, and I'm doing pretty well.' I scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT. I'm actually an Eagle Scout. I own and operate my own business. If I was your son, Mr Chairman, I believe I'd make you proud.

I'm not really so different from any of your children. My family really isn't so different from yours. After all, your family doesn't derive its sense of worth from being told by the state, 'You're married. Congratulations.' No. The sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other. To work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us. That's what makes a family.

So what you're voting on here isn't to change us. It's not to change our families, it's to change how the law views us; how the law treats us. You are voting for the first time in the history of our state to codify discrimination into our constitution, a constitution that, but for the proposed amendment, is the least amended constitution in the United States of America. You are telling Iowans that some among you are second-class citizens who do not have the right to marry the person you love.

So will this vote affect my family? Would it affect yours? In the next two hours I'm sure we're going to hear plenty of testimony about how damaging having gay parents is on kids. But in my 19 years not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character.

Thank you very much.

I was moved by Zach's speech. It was from a very impressive young man who would make any parent proud. He is a great credit not only to himself but also to his mothers, Terry and Jackie. In her written submission to the Social Development Committee inquiry, Jessica Owen made a salient point about same-sex parenting, saying:

Homosexual couples have to go through a great deal more planning than straight couples. We can't just accidentally fall pregnant. We have to think the whole process through in minute detail. Gay couples have to really want children. We have to be committed to the idea and plan our children's conception, which means that it happens when we are ready to be parents.

The law, as it currently stands in this state, has a number of profound and unseen consequences for single women and lesbian couples in South Australia who seek access to fertility treatment. These people generally have two options: one is to seek ART treatment interstate at great cost, both financial and psychological, and the other is to take what is, for want of a better description, the 'backyard approach', and seek out a sperm donor.

In the case of the latter option there are significant health risks involved for both the mother and child. When a woman seeking fertility treatment goes through the process of a backyard sperm donation she is denied a number of vitally important things, namely:

the psychological support she would have received through an ART clinic;

screening of potential sperm donors for genetic abnormalities or diseases;

safeguards such as 'sperm washing', which is a process where sperm is separated from seminal fluid before insemination. This process minimises the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV; and

a child conceived through a backyard sperm donation may be denied information about the full circumstances of their birth and genetic background.

The current discrimination against lesbian couples and single women under the existing Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act does not achieve anything. It achieves nothing from a public policy point of view and, in fact, actually results in an outcome which forces lesbian couples and single women who want to conceive and raise children to go interstate to access ART treatment, at much psychological and financial cost. Worse still, it forces them to resort to backyard methods with inherent health risks.

Does current public policy stop these women from seeking to have children? No; it does not. All it does is put unreasonable hurdles in the way of these women and subjects them to risks not required of married heterosexual women. As I said in my first speech in this place, it is time for our society to truly accept that homosexuality is a reality and that homosexual couples should be able to have their relationship and their love recognised under our secular law, just as heterosexual couples can. This extends to their right, their basic right, to have children of their own and raise a family.

Parenting is not about gender or sexuality but about their commitment and devotion to their children, about the love they have for them and about what it is in their heart. In my view a child can be loved and nurtured by a mum and a dad, a mum, a dad, two mums or two dads. It appears that much of the discussion about parenting in this case is about the sexuality of the parent or parents when, in reality, the issue should be about children being loved, cherished and nurtured. Given what I have said, I support the Hon. Ian Hunter's proposed Assisted Reproductive Treatment (Equality of Access) Amendment Bill 2012 and commend it to other members of this house.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:55): I have spoken in this chamber many times on same-sex issues, and I just reiterate that I will be supporting this legislation. I think it is well time that we got past the view that somehow same-sex couples are second-class citizens who do not deserve to have the rights of other couples, especially around access to IVF.

We know very well that couples are spending a great deal of money going interstate to access these services. For me, we are past it. It was this same sort of fearmongering around interracial marriages, interreligious marriages—Chicken Little, the sky was going to fall in—if all this came to pass. We have survived it, and we have seen other countries move on and other states in this country move on, and they have survived, too. There has been no collapse of society because of it.

At the end of the day, it is about whether children are wanted and loved, but I do want to raise a couple of points. While I support this bill, and I will be supporting it, it does distress me, and I will put this on the record, that probably the same people who will be voting for the right for same-sex couples to access IVF will also be against any changes to our abortion laws. We see 5,000 babies a year in South Australia aborted. Some of these babies could well go to meet the needs of gay and lesbian couples via adoption.

I find it quite ironic that we can sit here and take a stand on abortion, that it is about a right to choose for women, yet we buck at every possible opportunity to inform women of the facts about abortion and the procedures used, and then we sit here and debate the rights of parents to make babies in a test tube; that is just my observation. They are poles apart, and somewhere, sometime the two sides of this have to come together and see that there is a solution here for everybody that could well be beneficial not only to parents but also to children from both points of view.


[Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:45]


The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (19:48): Family First has considered this bill, taking into account the rights and welfare of all involved. When considered from that perspective, some very important questions arise including, firstly, does everyone inherently have the right to a child no matter what the circumstances and, secondly, to what extent is the welfare of the child a matter that should be considered as the overarching issue?

The first point I would like to make is to address the common misconception that the South Australian legislation is in some way trailing behind or needs to be updated to come into line with other states. The fact is, as the Hon. Mr Kandelaars pointed out in his contribution, that most states simply do not have legislation that addresses the question of who should and should not have access to assisted reproductive treatment at all. Indeed, Victoria is the only state that specifically legislates to authorise access to assisted reproductive technologies for so-called 'socially infertile' women, that is, they are either single women or lesbians.

Not only that, I draw members' attention to the Western Australian Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991, which contains significant restriction on access to in vitro fertilisation services. As with other states, except Victoria, it simply does not deal with access to artificial insemination as an issue in itself. Paragraph B of the Preamble to the Western Australian act states:

Parliament considers that the primary purpose and only justification for the creation of a human embryo in vitro is to assist persons who are unable to conceive children naturally due to medical reasons or whose children are otherwise likely to be affected by a genetic abnormality or a disease, to have children, and this legislation should respect the life created by this process.

Section 23 of the Western Australian act makes it quite clear that in vitro fertilisation is not to be used unless there is medical infertility. Where couples apply, in vitro fertilisation is restricted to couples who are either married or in a de facto relationship and are of the opposite sex.

In 2002 the act was amended to allow assisted reproductive technology for any woman who is unable to conceive a child, but due to medical purposes only. However, it is significant to note that the restrictions for couples were not amended, and nor was the preamble. In summary, then, Victoria is the only state that has specific legislation allowing for, as they might be called, 'socially infertile' women to have access to assisted reproductive treatment. Further, the Western Australian act specifies that IVF technology should be restricted to medical infertility.

The second point I wish to make is that Family First believes that the public opinion does not necessarily support the extension of assisted reproductive technology to lesbian couples or single women. In an online survey by the Herald Sun following an article dated 18 March last year, 73 per cent of the 2,400-odd who voted, voted that IVF should not be available to single women or lesbian couples, and only 27 per cent voted in favour of such access.

While I concede that data on this issue is in relatively short supply and that this survey is in no way authoritative, a 73 per cent result as recently as last year in a jurisdiction where a similar law exists to that which is proposed by this bill is highly relevant and provides a direct comparison, to say the least. I believe a similar figure would result if a South Australian survey were done today.

I argue that, in an ideal world, children should have the benefit of a mother and a father, particularly in their early years and ideally beyond, if possible. Of course, we do not live in an ideal world. There are many reasons why some children are brought up without a mother or a father and in some cases both, and there are many reasons why some children who have both a mother and a father are not brought up in ideal circumstances. That is the world we live in.

There is no doubt that single parents in particular do it tough and, on the whole, do a great job in very difficult circumstances. Rearing children is a great responsibility. We cannot make laws to ensure that all parents are responsible, but Family First believes that we should give children the best start in life that we possibly can.

Unborn children who are to come about through either artificial insemination or IVF, as this bill proposes, have no voice, and we as parliamentarians must accept the responsibility of looking after their interests to the extent that we can. Family First's position is that the rights of the child should indeed be paramount and, for that reason, we do not support this bill.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (19:52): Firstly I note from the member's second reading explanation that the provisions of this bill are based on recommendations made by the Social Development Committee. Of all states that have legislated to regulate the use of assisted reproductive treatment, South Australia and Western Australia are the only states that continue to preclude lesbian couples and single women from accessing the treatment.

This bill merely seeks to bring South Australia into line with other states. As the member points out, the current legislative situation forces lesbian couples and single women to travel interstate to access assisted reproductive treatment. Thanks to the recent passage of the Family Relationships (Parentage) Amendment Act 2011, these same couples are able to have both parents recognised on the child's birth certificate. Why, then, do we force these couples to travel to another state to become pregnant?

Clearly, we have a considered argument and a bill that supports the logical and legal implementation of a lesbian couple's access to IVF. This bill, which seeks to amend section 9 of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 1988, will correct the current absurd situation where one group of females is able to access IVF, but another is not. Given what is clearly a matter of human rights, it is illogical and cowardly that this existing right of exclusion hides behind prejudice. I support the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (19:54): I rise to support this bill and indicate that my Greens colleague, Mark Parnell, also supports this bill. We do so because it removes discrimination in particular against same-sex attracted South Australians but also, of course, against single women of whatever sexual persuasion they may be. We have long fought for the rights of all South Australians to fair treatment and against discrimination, particularly against those who are same-sex attracted in this state. I believe that we are a long way behind many other Australian states, which is to our shame given we were the first state to decriminalise homosexuality. We certainly now lag behind other states which were much slower to take that first step. I hope that we see the legacy of having once been groundbreaking, in terms of affording all of our citizens equality and human rights, as something that we here in this parliament should, in fact, be striving to yet again achieve.

The Greens, of course, were very pleased to see the passage of the Family Relationships (Parentage) Amendment Bill which was somewhat incorporated in the Social Development Committee's inquiry into same-sex parenting in South Australia. Of course, we got a bit of a move on ahead of the committee on that one and I am pleased to see the Weatherill government has been much more supportive of the passage of that bill into practised law by speeding up the process with recognition of same-sex lesbian parents of children conceived through reproductive technologies to both be on the birth certificate of that child—certainly doing it some six months or so before the Rann government would have been dragged to that position. I commend the Weatherill government for that step forward.

I also commend the Hon. Ian Hunter for his tireless work in support of same-sex parents in the state and certainly for bringing this bill before us. It is one of a raft of measures; it is by no means the end of the work for equality for same-sex parents and their children in this state, and I look forward to further debates in the near future, taking up a range of the other recommendations of the Social Development Committee. As Greens we believe that it is a ridiculous practice that single women and same-sex attracted women have to cross state borders to access reproductive technologies and go to the Eastern States when, in fact, they are full citizens of this state and should be afforded equal rights regardless of their sexuality or their marital status.

I do have concerns about drawing on a health budget that is already under stress but I note that this bill does not do that. It does not impose any additional financial burdens on this state in terms of the health budget which, of course, is already quite stressed—and for that I also commend it. There has been a lot of debate and conjecture that somehow by enabling family groupings that are not the nuclear family—a mother, a father, two children, a dog and probably two cars in the garage—we are somehow doing damage and not acting in the best interests of the children. I find those comments quite offensive. I certainly commend the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars for drawing our attention to the man from Iowa. Indeed, if any members have not seen that speech on YouTube, I suggest they take a look at that very inspirational young man.

The Hon. G.A. Kandelaars: Absolutely.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Indeed, thank you, the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars. I look forward to working with other members of this council and also members in the lower house to enact the rest of the recommendations of the Social Development Committee. I certainly acknowledge that, in fact, those parents who have used non-IVF or Repromed or similar medical interventions to conceive, and have done what is seen as using backyard donor conception, also need equal rights. In doing that we will give those children the best possible support that this parliament should give them.

Studies show that children who receive love and support, education, nurturing, healthy food and good shelter do well regardless of the sexuality of their parents or themselves and that is, in fact, the best that we can provide for them. With those few words, I commend this bill to the council.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (19:59): I intend to speak briefly. I was pleased to note that a range of members, both supporting and not supporting this bill, have indicated the importance they are giving to the rights of the child. From my perspective, as I did on the Reproductive Technology (Clinical Practices) Miscellaneous Amendment Bill 2009, where a similar amendment was considered, I also intend to give primacy to the welfare of the child. Whatever one might think about the merits or otherwise of particular family formations, I think it is important for us not to lose sight of the children who will be reared in these arrangements.

In terms of my consideration of giving primacy to the welfare of the child, I need to consider the relevance of the family context of the commissioning parents and its relationship to the interests of the child. Some members think that, by definition, allowing a child to be conceived in a non-traditional family is not in the best interests of the child. As a Christian and as a Liberal, I have profound respect for the traditional family, and I expect that in most cases a family headed by a mother and father is likely to be in the best interests of the child; however, I do not think that, by definition, other family models cannot be in the best interests of the child, and therefore I do not consider that non-traditional family models should be denied access to ART under this legislation.

In my view, denying access will not significantly impact on the pattern of family formation, but what we can be sure of is that, while diverse families will continue to be formed, if we do not allow this reform our children will be adversely affected. In that context, I highlight to members that the best interests of the child are promoted by providing children with the protections available under the ART framework under the bill.

I am very concerned that children being conceived outside the ART framework are not being provided with a range of protections. For example, they will not be given the protection of assessment and counselling services, they will not be given the protection of the full medical support of ART services, and they will not be given the protection of screening to avoid the transmission of sexual diseases and genetic conditions. So, consistent with my previous positions, I will be supporting this bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (20:02): As is often my experience when I follow the Hon. Stephen Wade in these matters of conscience, I wish I could say, 'Me, too, and all of the above.' For very pragmatic reasons—and I supported this amendment when it came before the house the last time—I believe it is in the best interests of the child, who does not have a choice in the way they are conceived, to have the full protections of our health system. I will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (20:03): In rising to speak on this bill, I acknowledge and respect the sincerity and consistency of the mover. He and I have discussed these matters over some years. I will remain consistent to the view I held when stewarding the surrogacy bill through this house and when a similar amendment was proposed by the member.

I have a great friendship with a number of people who are in homosexual relationships, and I very much respect the way in which they go about their lives. However, I still have a strong view that with these provisions we have—and those that I worked very hard for in relation to heterosexual couples who are unable to have children without surrogacy provisions, and I worked very hard on their behalf—we need to keep it within those heterosexual relationships., so I will be opposing the bill.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (20:04): My comments will be brief. For the record, as this is a conscience vote for members of the Labor Party, I indicate that I will not be supporting the Hon. Ian Hunter's private member's bill. I know he does hold his views with a great deal of sincerity and I do respect him for that. However, whilst I know he will be disappointed, he will nonetheless not be surprised that I am not able to support him on this bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:05): I rise to make a couple of brief comments. I think it will be no surprise to the Hon. Ian Hunter that I will not be supporting his bill this evening. While I have some sympathy for the cause and those who are affected by the current status of the law, you may call me old-fashioned. I am not sure what it is. but this is a conscience vote and as members in this place would know I always take my conscience votes very seriously. In one past example I actually changed a vote where I had had a longstanding view on a particular issue. It is not frivolously that I vote against this.

I do have a view that is similar to that of my colleague John Dawkins in relation to heterosexual couples and especially in relation to this particular legislation. I had a long meeting with three people who came to see me to argue the case, and they put a very good case to me. They assured me that it probably would not happen, but if there is any queue or any logjam in accessing the technology, I certainly do not want to see heterosexual couples disadvantaged. I know that is very difficult for those who support the legislation in this particular bill, but I feel strongly enough about it at this point in time to vote against this particular measure.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (20:07): I speak very briefly, but very strongly, in favour of the Hon. Mr Hunter's bill. I do not think that will surprise him or disappoint him. Since many in this chamber have already put on record some of the extensive issues related to this bill, I will not delay the passage of it too much this evening. Because the legislation in South Australia currently requires a woman to be medically infertile rather than what might be called socially infertile, single women, regardless of their sexual orientation, and lesbian couples cannot currently access ART in South Australia.

Let me just say that I strongly believe both single women and women in same-sex couples should be able to access ART, just as heterosexual couples currently can. That is because I believe a person should be judged on their ability to effectively parent and love a child, and I do not believe that that is something that is innately affected by sexual orientation. I also think that we need to remember that children born into same-sex couples are no more able to choose their parents than the rest of us are. Therefore I believe we need to do all that we can as parliamentarians to ensure that those children are protected under our laws.

At present, as we all know, we have what I call an utterly absurd situation in this state where lesbian couples must revert to the turkey baster method to get pregnant. This is, of course, undignified and very unsafe. Single women also need to do this; find a sperm donor through another method, or indeed lie to a doctor, hopefully a well-meaning and kind doctor, at a reproductive clinic. This is ridiculous in the so-called progressive and modern society in which we are supposed to live. This is another example of a law that discriminates against people on the basis of their sexuality, and all the legislation in this category needs to be amended.

I commend the Hon. Mr Hunter on his consistency, his tireless work, his sincerity and, I think most importantly, the heart with which he has fought for these issues. I look forward to, hopefully, continuing to help him achieve that in the future. As a member of the Social Development Committee, I had the pleasure of being involved in the consultation process on this bill, and from that experience my views on this subject are even more affirmed. I very strongly support this bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (20:09): I rise to support the honourable member's bill which seeks to ensure that lesbian women can access reproductive technology. As it currently stands, many single and lesbian women are unable to access the technology that they may need in order to have children. In fact, my understanding is that our legislation means that a woman needs to be diagnosed medically infertile in order to access this technology, and this is obviously a significant barrier to lesbian women.

As the minister has previously noted, we have seen this parliament pass legislation so that lesbian couples can be recognised on birth certificates. I was very pleased to support that legislation as well and, in my view, it is only fair and reasonable that these same couples be given the right to access reproductive technology. This is absolutely an issue of equity and fairness, and I commend the Hon. Ian Hunter for the incredible work that he has done on this very important issue. I am very honoured and pleased to be able to support him.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:11): As I did with the previous related bill, I will be supporting this bill.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Hunter to wrap up.

An honourable member: Briefly.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (20:11): Very briefly. I would like to start by thanking all members for their contributions in this debate. I think it has been a respectful debate which canvassed the issues on both sides in a very reasoned manner. Can I express my gratitude in particular to those members who have indicated their support for this measure. I will just make two very quick points.

Some members have said that they cannot see it in their own ability to vote for this legislation because they do not think they should be encouraging lesbian couples to go down this path of accessing IVF in South Australia. By opposing this bill, they are not going to stop lesbian couples accessing IVF. Simply, they will go interstate where they can and have been allowed for a long time to access IVF treatment.

All they will be doing is making them pay a huge amount of money to do it. The travel and accommodation, the repeated tests and treatments they have to undergo, sometimes involving three, four or even more visits interstate, to become pregnant through IVF take a very large toll on these families.

Secondly, we have, of course, by an act of parliament which many people in this chamber supported, passed legislation which allows lesbian couples who have children via IVF to have both their names put down on the birth certificate, yet we allow this curious anomaly to exist in our law which says we allow lesbian couples who use IVF to have their names put down as parents on birth certificates, but we will not allow them to access IVF in South Australia. We force them to go interstate. I think that is a nonsense and it is something we should be fixing up here tonight. I commend the bill to the house.

The council divided on the second reading:

AYES (12)
Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Franks, T.A.
Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M. Hunter, I.K. (teller)
Kandelaars, G.A. Lensink, J.M.A. Parnell, M.
Vincent, K.L. Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.
NOES (9)
Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L. Finnigan, B.V.
Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. (teller) Stephens, T.J. Zollo, C.

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Second reading thus passed.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (20:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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