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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2767 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Another point is that Commonwealth and international law both speak about the principle of the best interests of the child being paramount. The Family Law Act 1975 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory, both contain this paramount principle. I think it is unclear whether-and if so, to what degree-these principles of the Commonwealth and international law have been considered in the preparation of the current legislation.

Mr Speaker, the current legislation proposal deals only with the end product of a contractual arrangement, either expressed or implied, namely, the production of a child. It does not address the concerns of the Attorney-General relating to the need for comprehensive legislation to regulate ART in the ACT. Surrogacy is not a treatment for infertility per se; rather it is an extraordinary and highly invasive medical treatment for childlessness. The causes of infertility remain undiagnosed, untreated or untreatable.

Prominent feminist writers such as Robyn Rowland also oppose surrogacy and its consequences. For example, Rowland says that money may not change hands, but when a women agrees to carry a child and to hand it to another person at birth she is contracting her body and herself.

Among many things not addressed by the current legislation are questions relating to liability for genetic screening and questions about sex selection and designer children. What happens in situations when the surrogate mother refuses to hand over the contracted child after his or her birth, what happens if the genetic mother refuses to accept the child after his or her birth, and what happens if, after the birth of the child, all parties refuse to accept the child? However strong the desire for children, they are not commodities. Surrogacy makes children commodities.

Mr Speaker, I think it is very clear that all of us in this place have had many sleepless nights over this issue. I still cannot accept that we are passing legislation, given that the Attorney-General in his press release of a little over 12 months ago referred the issue of ART to the Law Reform Commission. The fact that the Law Reform Commission has not had the staff or the resources to complete this inquiry really is an indictment of the government rather than anything else. I am just disappointed that the majority of members have agreed to support this legislation.

I have some amendments which I will speak to very briefly. Effectively, they seek to repeal the legislation until we can look at this issue more thoroughly and more professionally when the Law Reform Commission does come down with its findings. I look forward to moving those amendments.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.13): I want to respond briefly to put the Labor Party's position in context and to explain the disquiet which we in the Labor Party also feel about the way in which surrogacy law was developed in the ACT. We have been quite explicit about that. We have also sought to explain the basis on which we are supporting this proposal today.

We accept that, as a result of the way the law stands, certain people have taken certain actions which have resulted in the birth of a number children. Those people acted in good faith on the basis of the law as it stood. The Labor Party believes that law was not as fulsome or as adequate as it might have been, that it did not cover the range of issues

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