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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2785 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I think we all agree that the law as it has developed is less than satisfactory. I think we have each stated that. These proposals today are one response to an issue that has arisen as a result of the fact that this parliament in 1994, through the Substitute Parent Agreements Act, allowed surrogacy arrangements in the ACT. This parliament, for better or for worse, in 1994 passed the Substitute Parent Agreements Act which allowed people to take advantage, through surrogacy arrangements, of some assisted reproductive technology.

They did that; they were entitled to do it. We can now reflect that this Assembly perhaps did not look particularly exhaustively at the issues, and I accept that; we have been saying it. I believe the law is a mishmash. I believe it has been developed in a far from satisfactory manner. The fact that we are debating this legislation today acknowledges that there are some quite obvious gaps, and each of us has identified a range of other concerns that we now have.

I have to say, Ms Tucker, that I think in terms of the force of your argument perhaps the most intellectually honest thing you could have done today would have been to stand up and seek to repeal the Substitute Parent Agreements Act, rather than, as I think you are seeking to do, basically put your head in the sand and say, "We have a very unsatisfactory situation here. I really do not want you to touch it in any way until we do a thorough job and a thorough analysis of the deficiencies. We do not want you to pick up any of the deficiencies along the way. It is all or nothing. We should persist with this thoroughly unsatisfactory law until we do something about it, and we should do it in a thorough way or do nothing."

I think there are significant deficiencies in that approach, which says, "This law is awful and I do not want to legitimise it. I want us in the future, when we get around to it, to change it, but I do not want to do it now if we do not do it thoroughly. In the meantime I will persist with what each of us accepts is unacceptable law."

I think it is an unacceptable piece of law. The process was extremely bad and it reflects badly on the legislature. But I do not think that it is appropriate today for each of us to stick our heads in the sand and say, "We have a shocking bit of legislation here. Let us forget the fact that there are kids being born. Let us forget the fact that over at John James we have an assisted reproductive technology unit which we understand is working on the basis of 25 current clients and 35 clients waiting for surrogacies. Let us forget all that, and somewhere down the track, if the government ever gets around to holding this Community Law Reform Committee inquiry, assessing it, considering it and responding to it, we might change the law."

Mr Humphries: It is the Law Reform Commission.

MR STANHOPE: I beg your pardon. I do not understand why we cannot today deal with the issues the Chief Minister has raised and some of us have taken the opportunity here today to add to.

I notice you have revisited the issue of twins. I disagree with you absolutely. I do not wish to go over that debate again. If you contemplate that we should not address the issue of whether or not twins can legitimately be separated at birth where they are born as the result of surrogacy arrangements, I think you are wrong and your approach flies in

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