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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4632 ..

MRS LITTLEWOOD (6.11): Mr Speaker, I appreciate that this subject is one that has emotional, legal and ethical issues which are really something of a minefield. My approach to this piece of legislation is somewhat different from my usual approach to things, in that I tend to look at things on the understanding that there is a lot of grey. From where I am coming from on this issue, I see it fairly much in black and white, which, as I have mentioned, is not my usual way of looking at things.

When people choose to have children by the normal method of conception, the natural method, no-one queries their parenting abilities and no-one queries their right to have the child; it just happens. I cannot help feeling that people who wish to choose this particular path are put through a lot of hurdles that really should not be in place. What I think should be a fairly straightforward issue has been complicated dramatically.

Last week I sat in on the discussions with the Women's Consultative Council. I purposely sat in on the surrogacy discussions. There would have been approximately 14 women there representing a wide section of the community. While no decision as such was taken, because they felt people wanted a little more time, the overall feeling was that there was no disagreement whatsoever with what was happening. That included people who were representing churches, older groups, and younger groups. There was no actual disagreement. I found that quite interesting.

The family law aspects have been mentioned. It was interesting last week to hear Justice Faulks say that he did not believe that the family law aspects should be brought into this issue at all. That takes me back to my view of this issue being made rather complicated. As I stated to begin with, natural parents are not quizzed about their ability. The rights of the child are not really looked at at that stage. The welfare of the child is not looked at at that stage. Why, therefore, in artificial conception is it that those parents are required to do far more than any other parent? That is why I see it as a black-and-white issue. I do not see that parents and people involved in artificial conception should be required to do any more or any less than any other parent.

Mr Speaker, I will be supporting this Bill. As I say, it is somewhat different from my usual style, as I tend to look more at the grey than at the black and white; but for me this issue is fairly much black and white. I will be supporting it.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (6.13), in reply: Mr Speaker, I must admit that I am really disappointed that, obviously, this Bill is not going to get up today. I am disappointed, for a number of reasons. I will speak about the actual personal reasons in a minute. From an Assembly perspective, I believe that I have handled this Bill as well as I could have. It has been on the table since the middle of last year. We put it through the Community Law Reform Committee over a prolonged period of time. I circulated the approach that the Government was going to take to the Bill with an accompanying letter. Normally, what would happen under those circumstances is that people would get back to me, particularly the Greens, who like this sort of approach whereby people can actually put amendments on the table, have round table discussions and try to sort out things. Mr Speaker, not one person bothered to get back to me. I assumed that that meant that members of the Assembly supported it or, alternatively, totally opposed it; so it was a black-and-white issue.

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