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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2777 ..

MR OSBORNE (4.54): I will be opposing this sunset clause because I think that, if the Labor Party was being fair dinkum, it would allow the legislation to be in place for those people affected at the moment and would then enact this sunset clause and allow the Australian Law Reform Commission to conduct an inquiry into this whole issue of reproductive technology.

One of the things that have disappointed me about this whole issue is that 18 months ago or even longer I started talking about the need for some legislation. In particular, the National Health and Medical Research Council has some guidelines for fertility clinics. However, these guidelines are not covered by any laws in any states or territories. After discussion with other members of this place I thought that, rather than going ahead with my own legislation, I would do the more sensible thing and send that legislation off to the Law Reform Commission because I could see that having legislation in place without the assistance of Justice Crispin's report would be silly.

Unfortunately, it appears that the advice I received in here from government members about this matter does not seem to apply to them. I think the more sensible thing for us to do is to accept that the legislation will be passed in some form and to repeal it so that those families that are affected now can do what they wish and then sit back and wait for the report from the Australian Law Reform Commission, rather than allowing the legislation to be up and running without knowing the full ramifications of what actually happens out there and coming back in two years' time.

I will be voting against this amendment. I have my own amendment seeking to repeal the legislation, which I will move should Mr Stanhope's fail. That would allow those families affected now to go through the process they wish to, but it would put a hold on any further ones, subject to the outcome of that review.

MR BERRY (4.57): I spoke on this matter before and I will try not to traverse ground that other speakers have dealt with. This amendment has arisen because of this government's failure to address this issue in a proper way. If it were not for this government's failure, we would be dealing with this matter in a proper way. If it had been to the Law Reform Commission, as proposed a long time ago, we would be dealing with this matter in a proper way, not in a roundabout way. We are doing it backwards; there is no doubt about that.

A whole heap of events have occurred with the encouragement of the Chief Minister and, in a sense, we have been placed in a corral over our concern for the community members who have been hooked up in this process as a result of the Chief Minister's enthusiasm for it. In the normal course of events I would be stridently opposed to this legislation going forward until it had received proper consideration by the Law Reform Commission and we were all better informed by its expert advice. But I have no doubts in my mind that we have to proceed with this legislation today, notwithstanding the culpable failures of the government on this score. That is an improper way to make laws.

I should say that in principle I have always formed the view that it is up to a woman to do what she wishes with her body. That raises another issue for me, that is, what does a surrogate mother do if she wants to get out of this arrangement? What is open to her?

Ms Carnell: She is the birth mother.

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