Updates to Western Australia’s surrogacy laws and assisted reproduced technology processes were passed in the state’s Legislative Assembly this week with an overwhelming level of support.
However a small group of MPs voiced their opposition to the laws, potentially giving insight into the arguments that will be mounted against the legislation when it is debated in the upper house.
After several days of debate which saw politicians in support of the laws voice their support and share personal stories of how the current laws have affected them, accounts from constituents and personal revelations; including experiences of IVF, children and grandchildren brought into the world with medical assistance, and John Carey sharing that he himself is a sperm donor, the bill came to a vote.
Forty four members voiced their support, a number abstained from the vote, but there were four members of parliament strongly opposed to bill. Former Liberal leader Libby Mettam led the charge against the legislation, new Liberal MP Liam Staltari was opposed, as were National’s leader Shane Love, and colleague Lachlan Hunter.
Hunter opened up his contribution to the debate by saying he fully supported same-sex couples having access to surrogacy, before revealing he’d been voting against the bill which would allow it.
“I want to be crystal clear: I support same-sex couples having access to surrogacy in Western Australia. I have met with same-sex male and female couples in my electorate who have shared their heartfelt stories of hopes of becoming parents.” Hunter said.
“I have spoken with advocates in favour of this legislation—passionate people who are seeking fairness, equality and recognition of modern family structures.” he continued, before adding that he’d also listened to the concerns of those opposed to the bill and ultimately would be siding with their views.
Hunter argued that while Western Australians had been waiting almost a decade for the laws to be updated, it would preferable to continue to hold off because a national report was underway which might provide a “harmonised, consistent model across Australia”.
Hunter said he held concerns about the age somebody could become a surrogate being lowered from 25 years to 18 years, and he believed there needed to be criminal checks for those wanting to become parents via IVF or surrogacy pathways.
“I am also deeply concerned that this bill does not include mandatory criminal checks for surrogates or intended parents. The idea that someone could acquire a child through surrogacy without background checks is just astounding. We require working with children checks for teachers, volunteers and sports coaches but not for someone acquiring legal parentage over a child.” Hunter told the chamber.
The Nationals MP said there should be more concern about cases where people have had children via surrogacy with the sole purpose of creating children who become the victims of sexual abuse.
Hunter’s concern about children being sexually abused by perspective parents has also been an argument put forward by the Australian Christian Lobby who have pointed to the case of Mark J Newton and Peter Truong, who obtained a child via overseas surrogacy 2005.
The case has also been cited as an example of why criminal checks against perspective parents would be of limited effect, as neither Newton or Truong had any prior criminal history when they became parents.
Mettam’s stance showed a clear difference of opinion she has with leader Basil Zempilas on this issue. Liberals Jonathan Huston, David Bolt, Sandra Brewer, and Adam Hort all sided with the government.
Addressing the bill Mettam said the government had potentially included more protections and safeguards in it’s puppy farming bill than it has in its surrogacy legislation. A comment that drew considerable condemnation from other MPs.
As the oppositions lead speaker on the bill Mettam said she held concerns about “the removal of oversight and the streamlining of the process involved in surrogacy arrangements without effective safeguards as it related to biological mother and child.”
She said members should not think of the legislation as a “gay rights’ issue, but focus on the central issue of the protection of women and children.
The politician said she was concerned about “the potential for the creation for the potential of the creation of children with no one willing to raise them.” Suggesting some people may abandon children they do not want.
She listed a variety of reasons for her opposition to bill.
“The reduced regulatory oversight of surrogacy, with little to no scrutiny of intended parents, that abrogation of scrutiny of surrogacy arrangements to commercial interests, the increased potential for exploitation and commoditisation of women, the posthumous use of generic material without explicit consent before death.” Mettam said.
Mettam also voiced concerns about the potential for commercial surrogacy, people being able to gain sufficient information about their biological background, and security checks for those wanting to become parents.
Colleague Liam Staltari, the member for Carine, also voted against the bill but did not speak to it during the debate.
Nationals leader Shane Love outlined his personal opposition to the legislation while recognising that some of his colleagues would be voting in favour.
Love said his opinions had been informed by previous work the parliament had done in issues like forced adoption, and he felt that there were genuine concerns that allowing greater access to surrogacy and assisted reproductive technology could had concerning issues down the track.
The reduced age requirements, posthumous collection of donor material, and concerns about commercial surrogacy were some of the reasons Love listed for his opposition.
The bill will now progress to the Legislative Council.
