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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2793 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Mr Rugendyke's amendments dealing with the best interest of the child, which we have just debated and concluded, have the effect of removing from the Chief Minister's bill a requirement that the law apply only to residents of the ACT. I understand that is a consequence of those amendments. The amendment that I have moved basically restores the position to that which the Chief Minister had proposed in her bill and which the Labor Party supports-that is, that parentage orders relating to biological parents in the ACT should be available only to residents of the ACT.

In light of the feelings of so many members of this place that have been expressed today in the debate on this bill, I do not believe it is appropriate that the ACT should at this time be legislating for the possibility of people from interstate using the ACT as a base of convenience for surrogacy arrangements. My amendment provides that this law at this stage will apply just to the ACT.

I note that one of the issues that the Attorney has referred to the Law Reform Commission for review is the prospect of a national approach and national legislation. I think it would be better to await the outcome of the Law Reform Commission's review. I have no doubt that we are all thoroughly looking forward at some stage in the future to a comprehensive debate this place on all of these issues.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (5.58): Mr Speaker, I support the amendment that has been moved by Mr Stanhope. However, I think it is probably necessary to say that if we accept, as we have by inserting this provision, that the Supreme Court's paramount consideration in making an order is that the order should be in the best interests of the child, you could argue logically that it ought therefore be irrelevant to the court and to the court's consideration if the parent or parents making an application reside outside the ACT. Strictly speaking, if it is in the best interest of child that the order be made, then the location of the parents should be irrelevant.

However, Mr Speaker, the reason I support the amendment is that, as is clear, I have reservations about the surrogacy arrangements. Frankly, in the interim-between now and when we debate whether this matter should be given a more permanent position on the statute books-I do not wish to create an environment in which the ACT becomes a national centre for surrogacy. It is appropriate for us to indicate that there should be some limits on these arrangements-that they be limited to residents of the ACT.

I cannot pretend, in light of what is in the rest of the bill, that the logic is particularly strong but I think it is appropriate for us to put that fence around the legislation and see how it proceeds in the course of the next couple of years.

MR RUGENDYKE (5.59): Mr Stanhope's amendment seeks to reinstate a provision in clause 11(1)(c) that dropped out of the criteria. We were given a great deal of help by Ms Julie Field, the drafter of the legislation. She was very tolerant and I was very pleased with the standard of drafting. She thought it was not necessary to keep 11(1)(c) in the criteria, given the paramountcy of the best interests of the child and the agreement of the parents that we discussed earlier.

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