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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2781 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The reference that went to the Law Reform Commission was very broad. Mr Osborne has read out a couple of the terms of reference, but I would like to add a few more, just for the record. They include:

Developments in assisted reproductive technology, including information on health outcomes for clients, donors and offspring;

.....

Whether the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Ethical Guidelines on Assisted Reproductive Technology are appropriate, and their role in any proposed legislative regime;

Options for possible ACT legislation, including

(a) oversight;

(b) eligibility;

(c) consent;

(d) a right to information and counselling;

(e) access to information;

(f) record keeping;

(g) reporting;

(h) prohibited activities;

(i) research;

(j) monitoring, storage and use of reproductive material; and

(k) licensing and/or accreditation.

The appropriate limits of legislative action; and

Any other related and/or consequential matters which the Commission may consider appropriate to bring to the Government's attention.

My point is: this is fundamental work that should have been done by now. This work has not been done. We have a law which was the result of a rather sloppy and hasty process in the Legislative Assembly.

By asking us to support today a further legitimisation of that bad law, without having done this basic work, I feel the government is not acknowledging-and I do not agree with Labor either on this-that it has an absolute responsibility to have done the work on developing a regulatory regime in which such law would work. This has not been done.

By adding the sunset clause I believe that we are reducing the pressure on the government. I do not agree with Mr Osborne that we should repeal this legislation. I do not go that far. And the Greens are not saying that we oppose surrogacy. What we are saying is that we believe that government has a responsibility to do much more than it has done.

It seems to have this desire to have this legislative framework which will allow this particular activity. I heard Mrs Carnell-she is obviously very relaxed about it. That is her right. I think it is incorrect that she would be that relaxed, and I understand Mr Humphries is less relaxed.

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