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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2770 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I found Mr Rugendyke's amendments under my door this morning. I have not had a lot of time to look at Labor's amendments, either. I understand that there is agreement on this amendment and that the numbers are there, which is fine, but I will not be able to support it. I need more time to look at some of these things.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.22): In speaking to Mr Stanhope's amendment, I believe that the situation will become clearer when I foreshadow the amendments that I will be putting to this chamber. The amendments that I will be proposing have, as a paramount consideration, the best interests and welfare of the child as non-negotiable, as a stand-out goal in this endeavour. I am sure that it is in the best interests of the children that multiple births be considered in the way that Mr Stanhope has put. I support this amendment.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (4.23): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I also missed the in-principle stage of the debate and I want to put a few comments on record.

When I went back and researched the debate in 1997 on the earlier version of this bill I discovered that I had not spoken on it. I think the reason that I had not spoken on the earlier equivalent of this bill was that I had been seriously unsure as to which way I would vote.

This is a matter, as members are aware, on which the Liberal Party does not impose a party line. Each member can exercise a conscience vote on these issues and these matters do very much go to matters of conscience and therefore are matters to which I am sure all members of the Liberal Party have given deep thought in the last few months.

Therefore, it is a matter of concern, I have to say, to note that there are now at least six different pages of amendments before the house. On an issue such as this, amendments are a difficult matter because each member-at least each member on this side of the house-needs to examine those amendments individually and determine whether they are in a position to be able to support them.

I have to confess to being no fan of surrogacy arrangements. I acknowledge that surrogacy arrangements provide very important opportunities for some people in our community to obtain access to reproductive technology which allows them to conceive and raise children. That is certainly seen by many in the community as being a right of fundamental importance and I have no particular desire to stand in the way of those individuals who have that desire and who are able to make arrangements suitable for addressing their needs.

I also have great concern about the circumstances where surrogacy breaks down, where it may appear that arrangements which are simple and straightforward at their first conception, if I might use that word, subsequently break down, and how these arrangements in turn can create enormous problems and difficulties and lead potentially to decisions being made which are not in the interests of particular children.

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