Queensland Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie (pictured) has now said that he is not seeking to remove the recognition for lesbian co-mothers for children born through artificial conception of some kind, and is not seeking to enact any new criminal offences concerning gay, lesbian, single or heterosexual de facto (under 2 years) intended parents from pursuing altruistic surrogacy, but is still seeking to ensure that surrogacy is only limited to married and heterosexual couples (of greater than 2 years).
What is not said is that those intending parents will not be subject to criminality. What is going to happen is that the Attorney will be seeking to amend the Surrogacy Act. It is possible that instead of making it a new criminal offence to enter into a non-eligible surrogacy arrangement, an existing criminal offence, namely entering into a commercial surrogacy arrangement could be amended, so that it would be an offence, for example, to enter into a non-eligible surrogacy arrangement. “Non-eligible” could be defined as incorporating non-eligible types of surrogacy arrangements, for example for non-eligible people, or for commerical instead of altruistic.
We won’t know until the Attorney clearly gives a public commitment that intended parents his government is seeking to exclude from altruistic surrogacy will not be committiing a criminal offence by merely seeking to enter into or to offer to enter into an altruisitc surrogacy arrangement.
The Attorney’s views are set out in a letter written from the Attorney’s chief of staff David Fraser dated 9 August, 2012, and found here.
Lesbian co-mothers: what the Attorney said back in June
After commenting about how the Government would be amending the Surrogacy Act, the Attorney stated:
“What we are also going to deal with is the other issue that that bill dealt with and that is parentage presumptions and parentage orders. Honourable members will recall at the time that the member for Southern Downs supported two lesbian women, who had a natural birth, both having parentage orders. I make it absolutely clear that going forward the government will be amending the provisions around altruistic surrogacy and the Surrogacy Act to repeal the provisions with respect to same-sex couples, de factos of less than two years and singles. That is the policy position we took years ago when we debated the Surrogacy Act.”
The “other issue that that bill dealt with”, criticised by members of the LNP as not being the right time and place to debate, was the recognition of lesbian co-parents. The opposition exlcuded the recognition of those women from its Bill, and voted against the Government Bill that provided that recognition.
Lesbian co-mothers: What Lawrence Springborg said in 2010:
Unfortunately, other reasonable concepts, including the right of same-sex parents—principally women—who have conceived a child using IVF and who wish to have a guardian recognition of that child, have also been tied up in this legislation. That issue should have been dealt with very separately, and there is a justifiable right for those people to have that recognition because those children are out there and those family relationships already exist. But the LNP will not—absolutely will not—be
supporting this bill because it is a contamination with the same-sex notions which the Labor Party has put in here. It is not only same-sex notions; it is also now opening surrogacy for singles.
What Jarrod Bleijie said in 2010:
I would like to premise my contribution to this cognate debate by stating to the House that the family unit is the originating source for how an individual interacts with others. Essentially, this ideal provides the framework and direction for how one will behave in future friendships and relationships. For children, it is proven that metacognitive social development can be intrinsically linked to the role modelling of the direct carer—in most cases the parent or parents.
This cognate debate combines the issues of altruistic surrogacy under different legislative amendments, the Surrogacy Bill 2009, introduced by the honourable Attorney-General, and the Family (Surrogacy) Bill 2009, introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. For ease of reference, particularly given the similar nature of the legislative amendments that have been proposed, I intend to address each bill
individually, beginning with the Surrogacy Bill introduced by the Bligh government.
Firstly, can I say that this bill is the start of the socialist reform agenda. They start with same-sex parenting and one begins to wonder where they will go and when they will stop. Children are not a commodity. You cannot just expect to make them and shoot them out left, right and centre for the sake of some selfish right for children. Next they will be arguing that we should have selfish rights to choose the eyes, colour and build of our children.
The bill seeks to decriminalise altruistic surrogacy and accommodates this action with the provision to legally transfer a child born as a result of altruistic surrogacy arrangements from the birth mother to the intended parents. The decriminalisation of altruistic surrogacy is a reform that I am happy to support in this House. As legislators, it is paramount that we reflect the attitude and general consensus of society. It is an unfortunate situation where some heterosexual couples are unable to naturally conceive due to medical circumstances on either partner’s behalf. The medical advancement
in the area of artificial reproductive technology should be embraced and responsibly adopted in society.
As a father of two girls and a third child on the way, I understand and appreciate the miracle and blessing one experiences when a child is born. I have a great deal of empathy for those heterosexual couples who are unfortunately unable to naturally conceive a child and I am liberally minded to legally allow these people to have an opportunity to make use of the science that can assist in this area. I support the provisions of this bill that decriminalise altruistic surrogacy, but I do not support the
extension of this legislative amendment to same-sex couples and single parents.
My brother was married once. He and his wife lost their first child to an unknown complication and tried again. One year after the birth of their second child my brother’s wife packed up and shipped out expecting, by some way of a mother’s natural affection for her baby, to take the child with her. My brother considered what was in the best interests of the child and has now been the proud single parent
of his daughter for some seven years. So I know through my brother’s experience how hard it is to be a single dad. My brother never would have chosen that for his daughter, but that is the unfortunate situation that was dealt to him. But his circumstance was different. He did not wake up one morning and decide he wanted to have a baby, expecting he would stay single. He was married and the marriage did not work, but he understood and appreciated before any of this that it was in the best interests of a child
to have a mother and a father at home. It took my brother a while to find someone else but he has now found someone else and he has a family as a dad and a stepdad.
As legislators we must consider what is in the best interests of the child. The Family (Surrogacy) Bill 2009, introduced by the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition, strikes a balance between protecting the rights of the child and introducing social reform into this House. The key difference between the government and the opposition’s legislative amendment bill introduced into this House is the recognition of the right of a child to have both a male and a female role model as parents.
There are several lobby groups which have no doubt contacted all members with respect to these bills. Unfortunately, the government has coupled the decriminalisation of altruistic surrogacy with samesex parenting issues. These are two very separate and distinct debates and the opposition recognises this fact. Again, this is another major decision not taken to the people of Queensland at the state election. And we wonder why the government did not take this issue to the election. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that in the latest Galaxy poll 86 per cent of Australians believe that what the government is doing tonight is not in the best interests of children.
The Bligh government’s own legislative agenda on parenting issues can be described as inconsistent at best. This is another example of a crisis-management government without a strong and consistent policy platform to govern for all of Queensland. Only last year we saw legislation introduced regarding adoption that excluded same-sex couples and single parents. To save face and restore its left wing credentials, the government has introduced this legislation, which decriminalises altruistic
surrogacy, including for same-sex couples and single parents. So to clarify the government’s position without all the spin, it is all right for same-sex couples and single parents to explore altruistic surrogacy for parenting options, but these same people are not permitted under state law—only introduced into this House and passed by his House last year—to adopt. For the benefit of the people of Queensland, can the Attorney-General explain to me the difference for the child in each of these cases? In his second reading speech the Attorney-General stated—
This government is committed to the freedom and autonomy of the individual.
Of course, that is when it suits its argument of the day. That was not the case in the Adoption Bill
2009 and more recently in the Criminal Organisation Bill 2009. The government cloaks itself as a party of civil liberties, but only when it suits it. In this case, the government’s bill is nothing more than cheap political opportunism to cosy up to the Left.
To me, this issue is quite clear. There is enough anecdotal evidence to justify the concern that children who do not have a male and female role model as parents have an increased risk of developing identity, social and behavioural issues in the future. The subject of same-sex parenting is and should be a separate debate. I personally believe that all unborn children have a fundamental right to have a male role model as a father and a female role model as a mother.
With regard to the family unit as a social construct, I would like to make the following key points. Particular concern has been documented by many researchers regarding children who grow up in single-parent families. Sarah Wise from the Australian Institute of Family Studies released a research paper titled
Family structure, child outcomes and environmental mediators in January 2003.
This paper looked at several issues facing the family unit and the effect of family diversity, namely parental role modelling and single and same-sex parent families in modern society. The family structure is considered paramount in the long-term development of a child. Family factors that significantly contribute to this development include family cohesion, sibling relationships, parental mental health and
parental style and discipline methods.
Another academic article on this issue was written by Mr Bill Muehlenberg and published in the
National Observer
in 2002 titled The case for the two-parent family. Mr Muehlenberg states—
A study of Australian primary school children from three family types (married heterosexual couples, cohabitating heterosexual couples and homosexual couples) found that in every area of educational endeavour (language, mathematics, social studies, sport, class work, sociability and popularity, and attitudes to learning), children from married heterosexual couples performed better than the other two groups.
The study concludes with these words—
Married couples seem to offer the best environment for a child’s social and educational development.
Moreover, it seems that evidence is mounting to suggest that the presence of fathers strongly impacts on the educational performance and intelligence of children. While some people may argue that any anecdotal evidence to support an argument on this subject is futile, there is a lack of academic studies on the effects of same-sex parenting on children due to the fact that this issue is one that is relatively new. There have, however, been many studies on the effects on a child on the deprivation of a
mother or father in the case of a single parent relationship. These studies and their findings should also be considered as relevant for studying the effect on a child that is raised by homosexual parents.
Professor Lyn Wardle wrote in her article published in 1997 that even studies in favour of homosexual parenting acknowledge some data that illustrates that homosexual parenting may be harmful. Studies in the United States have shown an increase of frequency of occurrences of anxiety, sadness, hostility, defensiveness and inhibitions amongst children of homosexual parents, particularly amongst boys. While I personally know and have nothing against homosexual people—in fact have some friends—I am deeply concerned about the rights of a child to have heterosexual parents. This fundamental right is denied with this legislation. The interests of the child should be paramount when laws to this effect are considered.
Like most members of this great place, today I received a letter from the Most Reverend John Bathersby. I quote from that letter a direct quote from Pope Benedict made two days ago on 8 February.
The direct quote from the letter from the Pope says—
The best chance children have of developing properly is found in a family because of the uniquely complementary roles played by the husband and wife…they need to dwell, grow and live with both parents, because the maternal and paternal figures complement one another in the education of children and the formation of their personality and identity. It is important then, that
everything possible is done to ensure they grow up in a united and stable family.
I note those opposite will be voting by way of conscience. Can I suggest to those members opposite who profess to be followers of the Pope that they read the words of the Pope first and then follow their conscience. For ease of reference for those members opposite I table a copy of the letter from the Reverend John Bathersby. I hope those opposite have a chance to read it prior to voting on this
piece of leislation.
I have been contacted by many constituents with respect to this issue and the respective
legislation introduced by the government and the opposition. The general consensus from those who have contacted my office is for a far more conservative approach than what the government has offered this parliament. In fact, the only lobbying I had to support the government’s bill was numerous form letters, standard letters, all being machined out of the same place, all having spelt my name the same way incorrectly on each of the 20 letters.
The opposition’s legislation is far more balanced. The social engineering the Bligh government is forcing on the Queensland electorate has been met with widespread criticism. The Family (Surrogacy) Bill introduced by the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition achieves the objectives of the bipartisan committee’s recommendations. The key recommendations included that altruistic surrogacy be decriminalised in Queensland subject to a regulatory framework; the government’s role should include implementing legislative reform, including a mechanism to transfer legal parentage; altruistic surrogacy arrangements should be unenforceable under state law; births are reregistered after the transfer of legal parentage for a child; and children have access to the original birth certificates when they turn 18 years of age. There was no mention of same-sex couples or single parents in the report’s recommendations. The fact that this omission from the recommendations of the committee’s report was disregarded again questions the role and structure of the committee system in this House and the accountability of government in Queensland.
As the Premier indicated in her contribution today, the reality with modern science is that we can as legislators assist couples such as, and I will use the example given by the Premier, Michael and Kirsty. Kirsty was not able to carry children to full term. I cannot imagine what that would be like as my wife has been blessed with uncomplicated pregnancies. Under the opposition’s bill Michael and Kirsty
would have access to altruistic surrogacy. This legislation would assist Michael and Kirsty to finally have the family that they have been so longing for. I support this because Michael and Kirsty, in the Premier’s definition, are a male and a female naturally wanting to have children but because of some medical condition cannot. Why could the Premier not stop there and cover the couples who genuinely want
children but for some medical assessment cannot?
The bill goes another step and allows singles and same-sex couples to use surrogacy. With great respect to the Premier’s contribution, her arguments are flawed. Unlike Michael and Kirsty, two men and two women are not naturally designed to procreate. The Premier claims that all this is happening in our electorates as we speak. That is what the Premier said this afternoon. I can say to the Premier that I can all but guarantee her that there are not two males in my electorate sitting in a doctor’s chair being artificially inseminated as I speak. Men cannot conceive and carry children. It is commonsense. The Premier brings into the fray the two women who can conceive; but men cannot. It was a tricky way to do it. As I said, the argument is quite flawed.
I always enjoy listening to the member for Chatsworth in this place—today was no exception with his absurd contribution. He trivialised this matter by suggesting that a child would much rather live with same-sex parents than in an environment where the father comes home and bashes the wife every night. Those opposite denied it when the member for Gympie mentioned that in his speech tonight, but they were the words from the member for Chatsworth: that if one asked a young child whether they
would rather live with a homosexual couple or in a situation where the father is verbally or physically abusive to the mother that they would choose the homosexual relationship. Any child in Queensland or Australia would, of course, want out of that situation. Surely, though, the member is not suggesting that we take away the child from the mother who is the victim of that relationship and place the child in the
care of a same-sex couple. I would suggest that what is in the best interests of the child would be to throw the father in jail and let the child and mother live in peace. Or was the honourable member suggesting that those living in same-sex environments do not squabble and somehow offer a better family environment than a heterosexual couple?
The member for Keppel and other honourable members opposite have linked our opposition to single parents with single mothers who have lost their partner through war or for whatever other reason. I submit that these people did not have a choice. We are not suggesting that single parents make bad parents. No-one has said that today in this place. To say in this place otherwise is offensive, particularly for those single parents who have not had a choice with respect to the single relationship, be it the result of death or some other reason.
We need to ensure that as legislators we do what we can to give every child the best start in life, which is with a mother and a father as parental role models. People should not flippantly make babies the guinea pigs of Labor’s social experiment. I condemn the Surrogacy Bill that was introduced by the Attorney-General. It does not take into consideration the best interests of the child. However, I do commend the Family (Surrogacy) Bill introduced by the opposition, which will allow heterosexual couples with genuine medical reasons, not social ones, to have children. Having children is not a right; it is a responsibility. We do not have the right to force this upon children. I pray that the conscience of those members opposite is far stronger than any fear factor enlisted by the state Premier. (emphasis added)
Lesbian co-mothers: What other LNP members said in 2010
Mrs Menkens (Burdekin, LNP):
Labor’s bill also includes a second issue of same-sex parentage and
recognition for lesbian couples where the child is conceived through ART, artificial reproductive technology. This should be a separate issue. It is an important issue and it does need to be addressed, but the debate that I am focusing on today is that of surrogacy.
Following on from this there was a review by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General which proposed amendments to the Status of Children Act 1978 to extend the parenting presumption to a lesbian partner of a birth mother when the birth mother has undergone a fertilisation procedure to conceive the child with the consent of her lesbian partner. The Queensland government also announced that it would release for public comment a Queensland model for surrogacy that would provide the
framework for legislation to implement the surrogacy reforms.
The report by the committee into altruistic surrogacy noted that the issue of same-sex parents had much wider implications for parents than surrogacy alone, and that relates to the legal status of children being cared for by same-sex parents. Recommendation 20 of the report states that the opposition bill achieves its objectives by implementing a regime for altruistic surrogacy and does not seek to combine together other issues of single and same-sex parenting, and nor does it seek to deal with matters that were not covered in detail during the extensive parliamentary inquiry on this issue….
The LNP announced that we believe the changes to altruistic surrogacy laws should be voted upon separately to any proposal to extend these laws to same-sex parenting. The two issues are worthy of two entirely separate debates and votes, as they involve separate value judgements. The state government has clearly indicated that it will not agree that proposed laws designed for hopeful mothers and fathers should not be tied to the passage of proposed laws pertaining to same-sex parenting. As the member for Southern Downs said—
… legislation covering altruistic surrogacy should not be lost in a debate on same-sex parenting.
Lesbian co-mothers: What Mr Fraser said on 9 August 2012
“The 2010 amendments to the S[tatus ]o[f ]C[hildren] Act were supported by the Liberal National Party at the time.”
Comment: As seen above, this is not accurate. The amendments were opposed by the LNP as being part of the Government’s Bill, which it opposed. The amendments to the Status of Children Act in 2010 were clearly contained in the Surrogacy Bill, clause 107.
Back to Mr Fraser:
“The Queensland Government is not currently intending to amend or repeal any of the parentage presumptions under the S[tatus ]o[f ]C[hildren] Act.”
Comment: This is to be welcomed. Lesbian co-mothers will continue to be recognised in Queensland, as they are in every other State and Territory and at the Commonwealth level.
Surrogacy: what the Attorney said back in June
As I previously posted, the Attorney told the House:
“The second issue is surrogacy. In this debate and in the correspondence that the government received with regard to this debate there was much talk about mixing these issues with surrogacy. I can also advise the House tonight that the government will be changing the surrogacy laws in the future. We will be introducing amendments similar to those introduced by the honourable member for Southern Downs when he was the shadow minister. We will be repealing the provisions in the Surrogacy Act that deal with same-sex couples, de factos of less than two years and singles. That was a clear commitment given many years ago when that original debate took place. The government will proceed to amend the Surrogacy Act.” (emphasis added)
Surrogacy: what Lawrence Springborg proposed in his 2009 Bill
This is what I posted previously:
Mr Springborg’s Bill provided that only those people who have entered into an eligible surrogacy arrangement could proceed and that those who entered into a surrogacy arrangement that wasn’t an eligible surrogacy arrangement committed an offence punishable by up to 3 years imprisonment. Eligibility was defined as the intended parents either being married or in a heterosexual de facto relationship of not less than 2 years.
This is what is contained in the explanatory notes to Mr Springborg’s Bill:
“Exemption from operation of
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991
Clause 6 of the Bill exempts the Family (Surrogacy) Act 2009 from the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991
the effect being that discrimination on the basis of the attributes in
that Act will be lawful, particularly in relation to who is an eligible couple for inclusion in the altruistic surrogacy process.
Overriding the
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 in this way clearly breaches fundamental legislative
principles. However, the breach is justified because the imposition of discriminatory processes,
particularly in relation to the paramount principles of the best interests of the child must be
maintained above the rights of any person wishing participate in the altruistic surrogacy process,
including any rights they may otherwise have under the
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 not to
experience discrimination.” (emphasis added)
This is what is said in clause 9(1) and (2) of Mr Springborg’s Bill:
“9 Meaning of
intended parents and eligible couple
(1) The
intended parents are the eligible couple who agree to the
matter mentioned in section 7(1)(b).
(2) An
eligible couple, for an eligible surrogacy arrangement,
is—
(a) a married couple; or
(b) a de facto couple comprising a male de facto partner and
a female de facto partner who, when the eligible
surrogacy arrangement was made, have lived together in
a de facto relationship for at least 2 years.”
In other words, if you are in a same sex relationship, or are single or are in a heterosexual de facto relationship of less than 2 years, you are not eligible.
Mr Springborg’s Bill made it a criminal offence, punishable by up to 3 years jail to enter into or offer to enter into a non-eligible surrogacy arrangement (in other words, the intended parents were a gay couple, a lesbian couple, single or a heterosexual de facto couple of less than 2 years). The Bill’s provision speaks for itself:
Clause 56:
“Surrogacy arrangements other than eligible surrogacy
arrangements prohibited
A person must not enter into or offer to enter into a surrogacy
arrangement that is not an eligible surrogacy arrangement.
Maximum penalty—100 penalty units or 3 years
imprisonment.”
This is what Lawrence Springborg told the House, as I blogged back in 2010:
- Labor’s loopy, loony, lefty ideas really started to come to the fore. This is some sort of pay-off for those members of the Left who were concerned about the government not going far enough on the likes of abortion reform in Queensland. They got their quid pro quo with some loopy, loony, lefty position when it comes to parenting in Queensland.
- Let us look at what the Family Council of Queensland said this morning in an open letter to state
MPs. It said—
The Bill—the Surrogacy Bill 2009—should have been about altruistic surrogacy—that is, non-commercial surrogacy—as a ‘last resort’ for an infertile couple. But no, under that respectable cloak this bill smuggles in an oppressive proposal to deprive children of their birthright—their fundamental right to enter the world, as all of us did, with both a mother and a father.
By what authority does any government permit adults to deny a child her primal right and most profound emotional need: to have both a Mum and a Dad in her life?
It goes on further to say that under this bill a homosexual couple can arrange to bring a baby girl into the world with the full intention of denying that child even the possibility of a mother in her life. The bill will help a single woman to obtain a surrogate baby boy, condemning that baby to live without even the possibility of a father.
We know that in the community relationships are not absolutely ideal. We know that in the community certain circumstances happen. We also know that in the community there have been samesex people, principally lesbian women, who have taken the opportunity to have a child. That has been a case of them utilising the opportunities open to them. There is a big difference between that and the state actually legislating to allow it to be part of acceptable families in Queensland. At the time [altruistic surrogacy] was very much couched in the notion of being extremely limited—limited for medical purposes. There was no mention whatsoever of the social desires of those people who, for all intents and purposes, cannot have children without that sort of intervention.
- We will be opposing the government bill absolutely categorically when it comes to those components of it. Those components unfortunately contaminate something that should be given the worthwhile consideration of this parliament—that is, non-commercial surrogacy in the way that it was originally couched and that was in limited terms for medical reasons and not for social reasons….
- the LNP will not—absolutely will not—be
supporting this bill because it is a contamination with the same-sex notions which the Labor Party has put in here.
- It is also now opening surrogacy for singles. We know full well that children do better in an environment where they have a mum and a dad. We know that.
- However, this parliament is seeking to legislate some sort of socialist ideology that says, ‘We will
deliberately facilitate single-parent families. We will deliberately facilitate same-sex families.’
- There are different desires for those adults. Some of them—heterosexual couples who are either
de facto or married—may have been trying to have children for some time and for a medical or genetic reason they cannot have a child and they might not be able to adopt a child. That is a very clear medical reason for that situation to happen. However, now it is a broad social qualification as well for those people who, because of lifestyle, would not normally expect to have a child. With this legislation, they can say, ‘Okay, we’re going to do that.’ We have basically now got designer families. This is about designer families and this is about satisfying the desires of adults. This is not about the children.
- Anyone who says that this is about homophobia is absolutely and completely wrong—absolutely
and completely wrong—because you cannot couch this in the terms of someone’s actual sexuality. This is not a mainstream issue. This is not a mainstream issue for the gay community.
- There is a fundamental difference between the Labor Party and the LNP when it comes to these views, and one that we do not support which the Labor Party does support is the notion of the state
actively intervening and actually facilitating the notion of gay parenting through a surrogacy arrangement.
- Children desire a mum and a dad. That is the simple reality. We should not be seeking to deny that.
- The bill is so contaminated by your loopy, loony, leftie policies that it is absolutely impossible to support it. If members opposite disaggregate the bill and take those particular sections out, we will support that section. We will support noncommercial surrogacy for heterosexual couples, but we are not going to support something that is so utterly and completely contaminated.
What other LNP MP’s then said
Ray Hopper (LNP, Condamine) said:
I accept that same-sex couples may choose to live together in ways different to others, but I do not accept the exploitation of children, assuming them to be a commodity which may be used by same-sex couples so that they can feel good.
One of them is so that same-sex couples can feel good, to gain popularity, and in doing so reduce children to the status of pets which can be acquired for our comfort and pleasure.
Let us look at the first five years of a child’s life. How would it be if a little boy had two mothers?
How do they take him to a public toilet when they go on a so-called family outing? They will have to go to the ladies toilet, won’t they?
How dare we try to break down the morals of a family by agreeing to this legislation?
Dr Alexander Douglas (LNP, Gaven) said:
It stands to reason that homosexual males place an
unreasonable burden on the system that makes surrogacy a sound concept. They legally cannot be mothers so they should not be included. That said, we need to get over it and get used to it. We need to move on. Let medical facts guide your decision. I am sorry to say that homosexual males must be treated as a separate group and for medical reasons alone must not be included in this bill.
Dr Mark Robinson (Cleveland, LNP):
Under this bill, for example, two men can create a situation where a baby will live their whole life without a mother, just because they want to call a child their own. The mother would cease to exist in law for the child obtained by a single man or homosexual couple. The father would cease to exist in law for the child obtained by a single woman or lesbian couple. The natural bonds of family and belonging would be destroyed by the legal implications of this bill. It is an absurd proposition that two men or two women are just the same from a child’s perspective as a real mother and father.
Jan Stuckey (Currumbin, LNP):
Homosexuality is legal in Australia and it is an individual’s choice to partner with
whomever he or she wishes. However, if a person decides to partner with someone the same sex as themselves, surely they acknowledge there is no physical way they can create a baby biologically. These are not fertility issues; they are life choice issues and should be viewed in that vein. I do not support surrogacy for social infertility or lifestyle reasons.
What Mr Fraser said on 9 August 2012
On 21 June, 2012, the Attorney-General announced in the Legislative Assembly that the Queensland Government will introduce amendments to the Surrogacy Act 2010… to remove the eligibility of same-sex couples, de facto couples who have been together for less than two years and singles to be an intended parent under a parentage order….The proposed amendments will preserve the legal rights of all parties to existing surrogacy arrangements but will not enact any new criminal offences.” (emphasis added)
