HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND SURROGACY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2018

Second Reading

Resumed from 9 April.

Comments from Hon Nick Goiran

Discharge of Order and Referral to the Standing Committee on Legislation — Motion

HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [5.16 pm] — without notice: I move —

(1)  That the Human Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 be discharged and referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation for consideration and report by no later than 27 June 2019; and

(2)  the committee has the power to inquire into and report on the policy of the bill.

I urge members to support the motion.

Comments and speeches from various members

Amendment to Motion

Hon SUE ELLERY: I move —

To amend the motion to delete paragraph (2) and substitute —

(2) That it be an instruction to the committee —

(a)  that it is not to inquire into the policy of the bill; and

(b)  that it only considers —

(i)  matters directly relevant to clauses in the bill that amend the Surrogacy Act 2008 and the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991 to address inconsistency with the commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984; and

(ii)  the proposed amendments contained in supplementary notice paper 88, issue 1.

Comments and speeches from various members

HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [5.34 pm]: This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on the Human Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. I want to make a few comments. Ordinarily, the Greens are very supportive of sending bills to committee. That is a practice that we usually try to follow. However, this issue is similar to what happened late last year: we have a reluctance to refer this matter to a committee on the basis that, as already articulated by the Leader of the House, it is effectively about competing ideas around the policy of the bill. It is the case that if we do not support surrogacy, we just do not support surrogacy, or if we do not think that gay parents should be able to access surrogacy, that is something that we believe. If we do not believe that single men should be able to access surrogacy, that is a belief that we hold and we are entitled to have and we are entitled to speak on that, and it cannot be reconciled through any activity of or investigation by a committee.

We have heard from Hon Nick Goiran for some time on this legislation. I am not surprised. Like many other people, Hon Nick Goiran feels strongly about the provisions within this legislation. Throughout his contributions, I feel that some issues have warranted further debate and other issues are not pertinent to the debate in front of us today. I feel confident that those discussions could be borne out through a second reading debate and also during Committee of the Whole House, we would be able to tease out the nature of the amendments on the supplementary notice paper and any other amendments that may arise.

Having said that, like the Leader of the House, my understanding from discussions behind the Chair is that it is likely to be the will of the house that this bill be referred to a committee for further consideration. As such, it is useful that we narrow down the exact scope of what this bill is trying to address. As I said, if we do not support surrogacy, this committee will not be able to resolve that. I am firmly of the view that gay men are able to be wonderful, loving parents and that a man on his own is able to be a wonderful, loving father. I want to say from the outset how offended I am by some of the correspondence that I have received that has cast aspersions on the capacity of sole parents, being a former sole parent myself, and never the twain shall meet. There are obviously strongly held views around this, and no committee will be able to resolve that. No committee will be able to come to the conclusion that I as a sole parent was a really good parent or that any sole parent would be a good parent. I see no merit whatsoever in trying to get a committee to rehash that particular policy.

Having said that, if the bill is sent to a committee to be considered further, I would like to make a few comments about a couple of the amendments on the supplementary notice paper that may be subject to consideration by the committee should they be referred. Should it be agreed by the house to refer this matter to a committee and to look at that, I am particularly interested in the issue of extraterritoriality. Like Hon Nick Goiran, as we have heard during his contributions to date, I do not support commercial surrogacy. I have never been supportive of commercial surrogacy. I am very interested in looking at amendments that might address the issue to discourage people from going overseas to access commercial surrogacy arrangements.

The PRESIDENT: Member, I might just say that this is part of the difficulty with that particular matter; it is not canvassed in this legislation. I remind you that we are dealing with an amendment to a referral motion, so it is a really narrow debate about why you either support or reject the amendment or why you would support the referral, rather than the broader issues.

Hon ALISON XAMON: Thank you, Madam President; with respect, the amendment refers specifically to discussion on the proposed amendments contained in supplementary notice paper 88, issue 1. I am referring to those specific amendments. If this matter is referred to a committee, I would like my concerns about those amendments on the record so that the Standing Committee on Legislation can have it as part of its consideration. It is actually part of the motion we are debating directly in front of us at the moment.

The PRESIDENT: Hon Alison Xamon.

Hon ALISON XAMON: As such, I am particularly interested in this issue of extraterritoriality because it seeks to discourage people from going overseas particularly to pursue commercial arrangements. One of my concerns is whether this will limit extraterritoriality simply to within Western Australia because my concern is that rainbow families often exist across Australia. I would like to know whether the Human Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Legislation Amendment Bill will prohibit people from accessing altruistic surrogacy arrangements between states in Australia. That has been unclear to me and I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer to it. It is a particular area I would like to have looked at.

The second issue on the supplementary notice paper is working with children checks. I note the report that has been tabled does not refer to working with children checks as part of the process, but it refers to the need for some sort of independent checks. I am of the view that working with children checks are not fit-for-purpose for this type of legislation. However, if this legislation is referred to a committee and the house looks at the proposed amendments to this motion that we are discussing now, I am interested to know whether there is perhaps a more fit-for-purpose process that would meet the needs articulated within the report that has subsequently been tabled. Those are two areas that I believe could be adequately canvassed during the Committee of the Whole House. I was fully anticipating to do that but in the event this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation, I would like to have it on the record that that detail might be worthwhile investigating further.

With those comments, I want to reiterate that I do not believe, as the Leader of the House does not believe, that the policy of this bill can be reconciled by a committee. I think it will delay it unnecessarily. Having said that, if it is to be referred, those are the matters I suggest would be worthwhile looking at further.

Comments and speeches from various members

Division

Amendment put and a division taken with the following result —

Ayes (14)

Noes (15)

Amendment thus negatived.

Motion Resumed

Division

Question put and a division taken with the following result —

Ayes (14)

Noes (13)

Question thus passed.

 

Parliamentary Type: