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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2769 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

My response to that issue is that it is simply not appropriate in these arrangements to say, "Yes, we did arrange a surrogacy and there was a multiple birth, but we really only ever wanted one child, so we are seeking a parentage order in relation to one of the children and not the others." The Labor Party is not prepared to countenance that. That is the purpose of this amendment.

That is one particular issue that I think we should imagine exists amongst a range of other issues that one could conceive, but I thought that this one was quite straightforward. There are a range of other issues in relation to which I am not sure that it is possible to legislate. Some of the other issues that I know are of concern to people as they consider assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy are issues in relation to which I am not sure that it is possible to legislate.

There are some aspects of human behaviour in relation to which one simply cannot legislate. But this is one in relation to which I think it is possible to legislate. I think that it is quite straightforward. I think that it is a reasonably simple principle that if there is a multiple birth, the children should not be separated as a result of the seeking of a parentage order by the biological parents of a child conceived and born through a surrogacy arrangement.

MS TUCKER (4.19): I would like to respond to Mr Stanhope. I still cannot agree. I am really concerned that you have decided that you are going to concentrate on one particular issue. As I have said, there are many other what-ifs. You have actually chosen one particular what-if and decided that you know that the overriding principle here is not to separate siblings. My concern about that is that every circumstance is individual and I would not want to be responsible for legislating to enforce that. What if we do force this onto commissioning parents and they do not want to have it?

Ms Carnell: If they do not agree, nothing happens.

MS TUCKER: Mrs Carnell is saying that if they do not agree, nothing happens. What are we creating? I am just not clear about what this legislation will actually result in. You need to be looking at the welfare of the child. I do not understand how it fits in there. Parentage orders occur only when all the parties are in agreement with what is happening.

Mr Stanhope's amendment is saying that within that arrangement you cannot separate the siblings. What will happen if someone does not want that? Where would that leave a child? I am just confused; I do not understand how it fits together. Maybe Mrs Carnell can explain it.

Ms Carnell: It is his amendment.

MS TUCKER: I know, but you seem to be understanding it better than I am. Maybe Mr Stanhope should explain it. I do not understand how that fits together. Nobody should be forced to take a child they do not want as that would not be in the interests of the child, I would have thought.

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