 |
|
|
ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY BILL 2007
Thursday 29th November 2007
Rev Fred Nile, Leader of the Christian Democratic Party, gave the following address on the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 2007 in the NSW Legislative Council.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I speak on the Assisted Reproductive
Technology Bill 2007. The Christian Democratic Party supports the aims and
objectives of this very important bill because it will correct some of the
original policies in earlier legislation. The bill requires those who take part
in assisted reproductive technology to be registered by the Director General of
the Department of Health. The bill makes certain requirements in relation to the
provision of those services, including a requirement that assisted reproductive
technology services be undertaken by and under the supervision of a registered
medical practitioner, which we support because it will give medical certainty
and professionalism to the treatment. Counselling services are to be made
available.
A number of restrictions will be put on the use of gametes, which covers semen, ovum and embryos. Assisted reproductive technology providers will be required to collect information from persons involved in the treatment and from donors. The director general will be required to establish a central assisted reproductive technology donor register, which will permit persons involved in the assisted reproductive technology treatment and donors to obtain further information about other persons. A person born as a result of assisted reproductive technology treatment using a donated gamete—either semen or ovum—will be permitted to obtain information about the donor of the gamete when they are 18 years of age. The bill prohibits commercial surrogacy and makes such agreements void. We support that provision because we do not believe the commercial world should be involved in this area of reproductive technology. I researched the debate in 1984 in this House on the Artificial Conception Bill and the Children (Equality of Status) Amendment Bill. Some of the remarks I made in my contribution on that occasion are still relevant today. On 28 February 1984, as recorded in Hansard on page 4691, I said:
These bills involve more issues, and simply to say they do not or should not is to speak nonsense. Many sections of the church would have strong reservations about these bills, though they follow on the principal bills which legalized these procedures. A number of moral theologians would regard the whole process we are discussing today as a form of adultery. Whether it wishes or not, the Parliament is drawing up moral codes in these areas.
I note that the legislation passed in 1984 and updated in 1986 in the Status of Child Act specifically stated that the sperm donor has neither the rights nor the obligations of paternity. He is presumed not to be the father of the child, whether the recipient woman is married or not, and that presumption is irrebuttable. Therefore, in the case of a child conceived by assisted reproductive technology and born to a woman who is not married, in law there will be no father. I am pleased that this bill will bring some sense to the whole process of reproductive technology treatment and particularly a change in procedure so that the donor is registered and his or her name can be made available to any child who has turned 18 years of age who was conceived as a result of that person's donation of semen or ovum.
I note also that the legislation indicates there will be certain requirements that deal with the dangers of infectious diseases. That is a very important aspect of the legislation. We know of cases, particularly in the 1980s, where homosexual donors who were carriers of the AIDS virus infected some women who used the assisted reproductive technology to conceive a child, and those women subsequently died of the virus. My wife and I had a great deal of contact with George and Noelene Cliff. George's wife, Noelene, was infected with AIDS through the assisted reproductive technology process and she died when the child she conceived was aged seven. Thankfully, the child, Lesley Ann, was not infected with the AIDS virus and is now 19 years of age. She is a healthy young lady but, sadly, she experienced the tragic death of her mother.
Tragic situations such as that have not occurred since that time because of the various strict controls that now operate. The legislation makes it quite clear that providers must comply with any infection control standards provided by legislation. We believe that when a child conceived through this process is 18 years of age he or she has a right to know the identifying details of the donor. We oppose the assisted reproductive technology procedure being used by homosexuals, same-sex couples or single women. We are pleased that the legislation will allow donors now to have a role in the whole process. We believe that it is a good development and one that is very much opposite to the approach taken back in 1984.
Clause 17 of the bill allows a gamete donor to place conditions on his or her consent, including a condition that directs that the gametes can be used only by a particular person or by a particular classification of people. For example, people of a particular cultural or ethnic background may consent to the use of their gametes only by a person from a similar background. The ability for donors to place conditions on the use of their gametes is especially important because any child born as a result of that donation will be able to identify their genetic parents and may wish to contact or meet them.
This policy will prevent what could be a very unhappy situation when a child reaches the age of 18 and meets the gamete, semen or ovum donor. The Christian Democratic Party believes that provision is fair and just and we support it. Obviously we will not support the Greens amendments, predictably, to remove those requirements.
Dr John Kaye: Is it predictable that you will not support them or that we would want to remove those requirements?
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: It is predictable that the amendments would be moved by the Greens; one could anticipate their amendments to this legislation. The other important aspect of the legislation—which again the Greens are attacking—is the problem of a donor becoming the father of two, three, four, five or even 100 children.
Dr John Kaye: We have withdrawn that amendment.