Queensland Surrogacy Laws: Round 3: why the two ALP members swapped sides

Two ALP members, Michael Choi and Margaret Keech crossed the floor. Here are extracts of what they told the House as to why they changed sides.

Michael Choi

• I have difficulties with surrogacy, primarily the concern that it is a practice which involves a
  premeditated intention to separate a child from his or her birth mother. Notwithstanding the fact that I
  have strong concerns for the wellbeing of the child conceived in this arrangement, I think I may be able
  to be persuaded to support a very limited form of altruistic surrogacy as an absolute last resort for
  infertile couples and only after all other available means are exhausted. I also agree that it is not in the
  interests of an innocent child for his non-birth parents to be imprisoned. The configuration of a child’s
  family is not his or her fault. Children should not be punished and disadvantaged because of this.
• The question that then ought to be asked is that, with all things being equal, would a child be

  better off raised in a family of two parents with both genders present? Some will say that it makes no
  difference. I respect that. I say it does, all things being equal. I believe in my conscience that children
  develop best, both physically and emotionally, when they are reared in a stable family with both male
  and female role models available, notwithstanding that this is not always possible. This is not to say that same-sex or single parents cannot be good parents; quite the opposite. Even those advocating for
  same-sex parenting accept the importance of role models but seek only to argue that perhaps ‘other
  positive role models can be found elsewhere such as scout leaders, school teachers and sport
  coaches’.

Margaret Keech

• I do not accept, as the parliamentary committee argues, that as a legislator I must strike a
  balance between the best interests and wellbeing of a child and on the other hand those people who are seeking to become parents through altruistic surrogacy arrangements. Nor do I accept that the interests of the child and that the interests of the parent compete and that a child’s interests need to be
  harmonised with those of adults who wish to become parents through surrogacy. To me, such an
  argument is completely contrary to the intentions of the UN convention.
• I do agree with my colleagues that children born into same-sex and single surrogacy
  arrangements should not be further disadvantaged simply because of the actions of adults. The rights of children who are or will be born in the future in these circumstances in my view should be vigorously
  advocated where possible by this parliament.