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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2766 ..

Mr Speaker, the first of the amendments which are now being circulated introduces into the bill a definition of birth sibling as follows:

I have proposed this definition as a result of my proposed amendments Nos 3 and 4. In order to give effect to those proposed amendments, this definition is required. I will just mention briefly, to put the definition into context, that my proposed amendments Nos 3 and 4 actually go to the issue of the non-separation of brothers and sisters born from a surrogate arrangement where, obviously, there is a multiple birth. The Labor Party takes the view as a matter of policy that children born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement in which the birth is a multiple birth should not be separated and this definition facilitates that proposal, Mr Speaker.

MS TUCKER (4.07): I wish to speak to this amendment, Mr Speaker. I missed the in-principle stage. I did not realise that it would happen so fast. Therefore, as we move through the amendments, I will cover some of the issues and reasons why I am voting against this bill in principle.

I am concerned that, with this amendment, Mr Stanhope is suggesting that through legislation we are going to develop and focus on this particular aspect of policy. My understanding of the concerns that are shared by everybody in this place is that whatever decisions are made are based on the individual circumstances and with the welfare of the child in mind as well as according to the welfare, wishes and circumstances of the commissioning parents and the surrogate parents, so I am reluctant to focus on just one aspect in this way.

Mr Stanhope may want to argue further for the amendment, but I do not understand why he would choose to focus on this issue when there are so many complex issues related to this arrangement. For that reason, unless I hear more convincing arguments, I cannot support this amendment.

MR OSBORNE (4.08): I too missed the in-principle stage, so I wish to speak briefly to Mr Stanhope's amendment and the reasons behind it. I am concerned that we are rushing through pieces of legislation because of individual cases. As has been widely reported, the Law Reform Commission of the ACT currently has terms of reference for looking at this very issue. To rush through legislation of this nature when it is very clear that any changes to the law in regard to reproductive technology do have a flow-on effect is to be neglectful on the part of this parliament.

Mr Speaker, the terms of reference to the Law Reform Commission as released by the Attorney-General in December 1998 and January 1999 refer specifically, among other things, to measures implemented or proposed in other jurisdictions, the need for uniformity with those jurisdictions in matter requiring uniformity and the need for comprehensive legislation to regulate assisted reproductive technology in the ACT. The current legislation is directly opposed to the terms of reference announced by the Attorney-General.

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