Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Tuesday 14 June 2011

SURROGACY LEGISLATION

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - I have looked at this bill now over a long period of time and it is a bill that we have had - and I am just trying to work out when I first got it - probably two months. It has been talked about for a long period of time and I, with other members in this House, would have been doing a lot of work on this bill over a long period of time. It is not a bill that has been thrust upon us and a bill that we have had little time to have a look at.

I recall not only the sex industry bill but also the TOTE bill. Some of you in this House would remember that bill - when that bill was thrust upon us one week and we were expected to debate it I think the following week or within a very short period of time, and it was very obvious through the debate on that bill that in fact the persons involved and who would be impacted on by that bill had not even been consulted. I tried to get a deferment of that bill and I was unsuccessful. I think the member for Launceston at that time, Mr Wing, supported me - we were the only two that supported the deferment of that bill - and that fell down around your ears.

Ms Forrest - That one was time-sensitive. That was a bit of a difference there.

Mr DEAN - I would strongly argue that it was not time-sensitive at all, as we found out, because nothing happened and no sale took place in any event.

Mr Finch - Through you, Mr Deputy President - on that time sensitivity of that particular bill, though, I think there was a sense that there was something there which we never quite nailed down but I think we got a feeling that there was something that could prove beneficial to the State.

Mr DEAN - For the information of the member for Rosevears, the Treasurer of the time was telling us that there was a potential buyer on the horizon. That was the reason for that but the Treasurer, you might recall, also said other things about that bill that have not occurred. You might recall some of those issues in relation to it.

In this instance, Mr Deputy President, there is a number of areas that I am concerned with in the bill and I have spoken to the Leader's office in relation to those and I have had at this time a number of amendments drawn up; in fact the amendments I think total 20 to 30 amendments but I have looked at about five areas that I considered to be important and those other amendments simply are completed to take into account those four or five quite major, I believe, amendments to this bill. They are simply changing clauses around to coincide with those amendments I have put forward.

The amendments I have referred to, and the member for Nelson has mentioned some of them here today, related to the genetic connection. I believe there ought to be a genetic connection. I agree that the surrogate mother should be 25 years and/or older and have had a previous child.

Mr Parkinson - The Government would be happy with that too.

Mr DEAN - Would they?

Mr Parkinson - Yes.

Mr DEAN - That's good. I also believe that the surrogate egg ought not be used in the process because of the strong connection and tie that it creates towards that child. That is in other legislation. If you look around the country at other States, a lot of them have taken on board these positions in relation to their legislation.

Ms Forrest - Aren't you acknowledging, then, that this bill does need more work in the number of amendments that you are suggesting?

Mr DEAN - I am getting to my position on it. I also have some concerns in relation to same-sex couples being entitled to have a child through surrogacy. I have some concerns there but I am open to discussion and further debate on that matter.

I believe there ought to be medical reasons why surrogacy should be undertaken. I do not believe it should be a case of somebody, almost akin to shopping, going and buying a baby off the shelf. I do not believe that should be the case; a child being treated as a commodity. It is more important than that, so I have some issues and concerns there as well.

My other amendment was in relation to the married and de facto spousal relationships. I believe that it ought to be a fairly strong relationship; in other words, a relationship that has been in place for three years and/or longer.

They are some of the issues that I have had concerns with. There are a number of areas, however I have looked at those points in some depth and I have spoken to a lot of people. I have spoken to and talked about one person in particular here today, Sam Everingham, who is, I think, the Secretary of Surrogacy Australia. I ran these amendments by him and he was quite satisfied and happy with almost all of those amendments, but certainly not the amendment in relation to same-sex couples. As the member for Launceston would be aware, he spoke fairly strongly about that. I believe that the member for Launceston made a very good point with him on that as well. Interestingly, when he left our office at Launceston, he was strongly of the view that there was no need for a further deferment of this matter.

Ms Forrest - Then he went to Wynyard.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - He was strongly of that view. Mr Deputy President, Mr Everingham came before me and also the member for Launceston and the member for Rosevears, who had his secretary there in support of him. I believe that we could convince him that we would not want this adjournment again. He seemed to me to be a gentleman that you could change with some open discussion and debate on the issue.

Mr Wilkinson - You didn't use police tactics on him, did you?

Mr DEAN - No. I think it depends a lot on to whom he has last spoken as to where his decision lies, so I have some issues there.

Certainly, this is a very important bill. The committee has been mentioned, and I think I can read the numbers quite easily around the room. What I intend to do is to move an amendment in a moment in relation to this matter. I do not believe that it should be open ended at all. We are told the member for Nelson identified the fact that the way we have the committee structured now, it can get up and running almost immediately. There is no time lost and it does not have to come back before this Chamber for a decision to be made. This committee could commence its inquiries tomorrow if it so wanted to, or the next day or the next week. I would think that this inquiry would take priority over others because of the importance of it. It might have been the member for Rosevears who said there is no time issue here, but I believe there is. The other States have this legislation in place; it is operating in the other States. We have surrogacy here. There is evidence and I am aware of surrogacy having occurred in this State so we have people who really are offending and who could be charged currently, as I read legislation.

Ms Forrest - No.

Mr DEAN - That is the way I read the existing legislation and that was my advice, that they could well be committing offences. It is an issue that should be dealt with as quickly as we can. I believe that the best position for us would be an amalgam of the surrogacy laws throughout the country. If you look at them, as the member for Nelson said, there are so many differences.

I looked at it closely last night for hours on end trying to come to terms with all the differences and I have written down a lot of the differences that are currently applying. There is an enormous number. Who has it right and who has it wrong? I suppose some delay here would give us the opportunity to look at some of the other States and how their legislation is working.

Ms Forrest - Everyone else has had a very extensive report done.

Mr DEAN - Yes. I suppose some of you have made inquiries in the United Kingdom where it has been underway for some time as well and some of the issues that have arisen there. It is quite interesting when you start to look at surrogacy around the world as to where it has gone and some of the issues that have come out of it.

I suppose this delay will give some further time to do that. Inasmuch as I was not going to support the motion, I will now move an amendment to the motion. I move -

That the motion be amended after 'report' by inserting 'and that the committee report by Tuesday 23 August 2011'.

I do not believe this should be open ended. If there is no time line put there - and this matter very clearly is going to be supported - it could mean that this report could be drawn out and not come back before this House until next year or extremely late in this year if we got to it at the end of this year.

There needs to be a time limit on it and I think that that is a reasonable time. That is a 10-week period and that is one week before we sit again on 30 August. We adjourn, I think, on 14 or 15 July from memory for the winter break and we come back on 30 August. I think 10 weeks is a reasonable time. The member for Murchison I think said that this would not be a lengthy inquiry. We were told by the member for Nelson that the committee can sit at a minute's notice, virtually.

Mr Wilkinson - That is not news. You know that it can.

Mr DEAN - Well, it is whether or not it will. If a time is inserted into this it makes the committee realise that this report has to be done by a certain time and they will give it the priority it deserves and that we need to get on with this matter and deal with it as quickly as we can. I have moved that amendment for that very reason and I would urge members to accept that because I can see it having a real effect here. It will require a report at the earliest opportunity.

Return To Main Page. Return To Speeches.