Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 3169 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

If the Assembly does at some point in the future come back and consider and pass the legislation that is before the house at the moment, I propose to amend the terms of reference to the CLRC to make reference to the amendment to the Artificial Conception Act rather than simply to the Bill. If, alternatively, the Assembly does not pass the legislation when it resumes to consider it, then this reference will stand in the present form. However, it would be appropriate to make the reference to the CLRC sooner rather than later.

Members will see that I have referred three Acts to the CLRC. They are the Substitute Parent Agreements Act 1994, the Artificial Conception Act 1985 and the Adoption Act 1993, in particular as it relates to non-commercial surrogacy. The committee is being asked particularly to address anomalies and inconsistencies between the Acts as they impact on or relate to non-commercial surrogacy; the provisions of the Substitute Parent Agreements Act, the Adoption Act and the Artificial Conception Act as it is proposed to be amended by the Bill that is before the house; and any other related matters that appear to the committee to be relevant. I hope this will pick up the issues and interests that members in this place have identified. I hope it will guide the Assembly in its long-term deliberations about these issues.

I emphasise in making this reference that, if the Assembly happened to pass the legislation that is now before the house, that would not prevent, and should not be seen as preventing, the CLRC from making recommendations that might touch on these issues, indeed, that might be inconsistent with the view of the house. I will be conveying to the chair of the CLRC that it is my intention that there should not be any view that the Bills, once passed, have become law and should not be reconsidered by the CLRC. It is a law reform body. Naturally enough, it will have the power to recommend that changes to the law might occur, notwithstanding that they have been only recently considered by the Assembly.

MS FOLLETT (3.33): Mr Speaker, I support Mr Humphries's move to refer to the Community Law Reform Committee the issue of non-commercial surrogacy and the Artificial Conception (Amendment) Bill introduced by Mrs Carnell. I had hoped that my motion asking the Government to make such a referral would have been debated in the Assembly yesterday. As Assembly business turned out, we were not able to get to that motion, and I think it is appropriate that the reference go to the Community Law Reform Committee at the first opportunity.

There is a fairly major difference between the wording of Mr Humphries's referral and the motion I had proposed to the Assembly. However, I still think it is worthwhile proceeding. Mr Humphries's referral, in effect, asks the Community Law Reform Committee for a legal opinion on the Artificial Conception (Amendment) Bill in relation to other existing Acts affecting parentage. I would have asked, had my motion been debated, for a rather broader reference and asked the Community Law Reform Committee to consult widely and as they saw fit on this whole issue. However, I believe the important thing is that the Community Law Reform Committee start work on the issue, and I therefore am not going to take issue with Mr Humphries's rather narrower request of that committee.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .