Bills
Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025
Second reading
Resumed from 11 September.
Mr Kevin Michel (Pilbara) (1:14 pm): I rise to make my contribution to the Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025 second reading debate. I thank my colleagues for their valuable contributions.
The aim of the Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025 is to remove outdated discriminatory barriers that hinder people from accessing assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy and to create a more inclusive Western Australia. I stand today to speak in favour of the Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025 and to support the stance that everybody has the right to start a family regardless of their sexual orientation, sex, gender identity or relationship status. The current legislation—the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991, the Surrogacy Act 2008 and the Artificial Conception Act 1985—is constrained, allowing only heterosexual couples who experience medical infertility or whose child would likely be affected by genetic abnormality or disease to access ART and surrogacy. In addition to this, Western Australians who fall outside the criteria are forced to travel interstate or overseas to start a family. The new bill will remove those limitations, which are no longer relevant in today's society. The Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025 will enable same-sex couples, single people, transgender and intersex Western Australians to access ART and surrogacy. It places the child and patients and their experience front and centre, and streamlines access, modernises the legal framework and ensures Western Australians can access the care and support they need to build or start a family.
The Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025 has undergone an in-depth consultation process to ensure the needs of the community are met and will allow access to ART and surrogacy to those who are struggling to conceive, including LGBTQIA+ community members. It will also ensure safe and sensitive processes for those pursuing reproductive assistance.
The bill includes further rights for donor conception, allowing donor-conceived individuals to access information regarding their social and genetic heritage. It will allow donors and the intended parents to gain certain information and provide rights to donors on consultation on the continuing use of donated reproductive material. Donors and contributing parents may withdraw consent and the action of a licensee must undertake the following withdrawal.
The bill will replace the WA Reproductive Technology Council with the Assisted Reproductive Technology Advisory and Review Board. It will have an advisory function and certain approval powers and will reduce regulatory burdens. The bill will also ensure clinical assessments are conducted of the psychosocial and medical sustainability of individuals pursuing ART services before the services are provided.
Western Australia's existing worldwide five-family limit for the use reproductive material from the same donor to create a family will be maintained. This means that no more than five families worldwide should be related to the same donor.
It will also allow for fertility preservation procedures, which will allow for the collection of reproductive material when required, to provide the participants with further reproductive options when they are undergoing medical treatments or procedures that could damage reproductive organs or material. Although the bill requires individuals to be 18 years or older to access ART, exceptions will be made for individuals under the age of 18 for fertility preservation.
Furthermore, the bill promotes equality, improves access, modernises outdated laws, prioritises the best interests of the children, and reflects public support. These changes will bring Western Australia into line with other jurisdictions, including Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, the ACT and Queensland, ensuring that Western Australia is a place where every family is valued and everyone who wants to become a parent has the right to try.
The Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025 is overdue, as families come in many forms and the ability to start a family should not depend on a person's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status. I support the bill and look forward to seeing the positive outcomes it will have for those wanting to start a family and who now will be able to do so. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak. I commend the bill to the house.
Ms Simone McGurk (Fremantle—Minister for Women) (1:21 pm): I rise to speak in support of the reforms to assisted reproductive technology being introduced by the Cook Labor government to make parenthood more accessible. The Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025 is a historic step for Western Australia, and is one that many people in our state have waited far too long for. As the Minister for Women and a representative of my community, I care deeply about equity. It is important for me to make a contribution in support of this bill.
At their core, these reforms are about equality and ensuring that all Western Australians, regardless of gender, sexuality or relationship status have the same legal right to become parents through assisted reproductive technology. This legislation aligns our state with the federal anti-discrimination principles. This is not only fair, but also necessary. These reforms reflect the evolving social and ethical consensus in our state and are in line with practices in other jurisdictions.
The Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill removes outdated and discriminatory barriers to accessing fertility treatment. Access to assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy will now be based on a clinical assessment of the person's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances. The new laws will allow equitable access regardless of sex, gender identity, relationship status, sexual orientation or sex characteristics. The requirement for medical infertility will be removed, opening access to individuals and couples previously excluded, including members of the LGBTQIA+ community. The bill also allows assisted reproductive procedures for the purposes of fertility preservation. This means that if individuals are undergoing medical treatment or procedures that could damage reproductive material or organs, they can make preparations for future reproductive options.
The legislation also replaces outdated laws, including the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991, the Artificial Conception Act 1985 and the Surrogacy Act 2008. We are proud as a government to support these reforms to ensure that we are breaking down the barriers to parenthood and building stronger families. For too long many people wanting to start their families have had to leave Western Australia to do that, and this bill will rectify that.
As Minister for Women, the principles of equal access are of fundamental importance to me, and this bill rises to those principles. I am proud to be part of a Labor government that has historically, at its core, been committed to progressive reform for all Australians. It was a Labor government that expanded access to secure, affordable housing through the Social Housing Accelerator and the Housing Australia Future Fund, recognising that housing accessibility is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right. It was a Labor government that made vocational education more affordable through introducing fee-free TAFE. It was a Labor government that brought accessible health care with the introduction of Medicare 41 years ago. It was a Labor government that advanced gender equality in the workplace by embedding the principles of equal pay for equal work through the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, challenging systemic inequalities. It was a Labor government that recognised the importance of autonomy in relationships, introducing no-fault divorce through the Family Law Act 1975, and with it the right to leave marriages without legal retribution. It was a Labor government that championed reproductive justice through the Abortion Legislation Reform Act 2023, removing the structural barriers to health care and creating safe access zones. That is why I am proud to be part of a government that is building a future that is equitable and fair in which everyone has the right to thrive.
I am sure other members have quoted a few endorsements of this legislation. That includes the board director of Rainbow Families Australia, Paul Hadfield-Jia, when he said:
I welcome this long-overdue bill and thank the WA Government for taking this important step towards equality for all families. International surrogacy is not only costly but risky for those involved, but people continue to take these risks because there are no other options. WA is the only state where our ART and surrogacy laws violate our equality laws. They exclude and discriminate against LGBTQ+ people who want to start a family.
…
In 2021 I had a cancer scare and I suddenly realised that if I died, my baby girl could end up in the out of home care system even though my husband has loved and cared for her since she was born, because the laws do not recognise him as a parent.
He described the reintroduced bill as a significant milestone:
This is truly monumental legislation. It's about allowing WA residents to create their families here safely in WA.
I also quote Anna Brown, the CEO of Equality Australia, who says:
Gay couples have to travel interstate or overseas just to start a family — leaving behind their jobs, support networks and spending enormous sums of money — all while their children are denied the basic right of legal recognition for both parents.
There is more work to do but this Bill is a good first step, and it's high time WA's laws were brought into line with the rest of Australia.
For many couples, the dream of starting a family has been meant years of waiting, heartache and uncertainty. We urge every MP in parliament to support this Bill and help give these couples a chance at the family they've been hoping for.
Finally, I quote Clare from Hamilton Hill, a constituent who contacted me. I would like to have spoken to Clare, but I was not able to connect with her before speaking on this legislation, but I thank her for contacting me and for taking the time to support the legislation. According to my notes, Clare says in her email to me:
As one of your local constituents, I write to request support for the WA Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and Surrogacy Reforms Bill, which was introduced to the Parliament on 13 August 2025.
…
WA laws currently violate Commonwealth laws and expose WA. Our WA laws are outdated and cause significant harm to our Western Australian people. They discriminate on the basis of gender and medical condition and prevent many Western Australians from starting families of their own.
These barriers force many people to seek arrangements overseas, often in countries with limited safeguards, increasing risk to families and vulnerable individuals.
Even more distressing is that under current legislation, many children born through international surrogacy are unable to have both of their parents legally recognised in Western Australia. This legal gap is unacceptable and demands urgent reform.
This Bill is our opportunity to finally change that.
Why would any politician oppose enabling children to be born safely and ethically here in WA or deny families the recognition and protections they deserve - especially when we have the ability to establish a robust legal framework that safeguards everyone involved, including that child?
As my local representative, I urge you to support the ART and Surrogacy Bill.
That is exactly what I am doing. She also said:
People like me, children and families across Western Australia are counting on you to do the right thing.
This legislation delivers on the Cook government's commitment to modern, inclusive, evidence-based laws that reflect the needs of all Western Australians. I commend the bill to the house.
Ms Kim Giddens (Bateman—Parliamentary Secretary) (1:29 pm): I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025 and signal my support for its passage through this place. We have had outstanding contributions from members who have shared what are deeply personal stories. They have talked about their families or their wish to have a family, and the ways in which their current exclusion from accessing surrogacy has impacted them on a deeply personal level. I thank them for sharing that. We have heard from them and others about how the current laws exclude some people in our community from accessing surrogacy on the basis of their sexual orientation or relationship status—not their ability to be a good parent, but simply because they are in a same-sex relationship. I do not think that is fair, but I accept that there are some in our community and some in this place for whom that is not their belief. I do not rise today to try to convince those who have that belief of a different perspective. In fact, I rise to say that I respect their right to hold that view, whether it is based on their religious, cultural or social moral convictions. But I still do have an ask; that is, I ask that those in this place who do not support the bill based on their own personal belief systems consider the basis of our secular democratic system and how we should inform our decision-making in this place around laws that impact our entire community.
I am going to return to my uni days, when I was required to write an essay on John Stuart Mill. I am going to reflect on some of what I wrote at the time. John Stuart Mill was one of the foundational intellects, whose ideas underpin many of the institutions and values of our western liberal secular democracies. In particular, I refer to three broad and guiding principles. The harm principle—that liberty can be curtailed only to prevent harm to others—is a foundational test for lawmaking in liberal democracies. We see this principle echo through human rights institutions across western liberal democracies that have constitutional jurisprudence and free speech protections. JS Mill also spoke about the defence of minority rights and warned against the tyranny of the majority. That is a cornerstone of our pluralist system—that democracies have protections for minorities, as well as reflecting the majority will. The third foundational aspect of his work is that of secular foundations. His key argument in this respect was that laws must rest on preventing harm, not enforcing morality. Members, we have a secular system of democracy; it is one of the core principles.
I now turn to the harm principle. In considering this bill, there are two key places in which we can consider whether there is harm. The first is to the surrogate and the second is to the child. In relation to the surrogate, it is absolutely fundamental that we protect the wellbeing and health of women. We know that women still do not enjoy the equality that we would like or hope for across many western democracies. When there is inequality, there is often the possibility for there to be coercion or inequity that drives women to make a choice that they might not make in different circumstances. We must be alive to that consideration. In that respect, this bill does not support commercial surrogacy; it is about altruistic surrogacy. Studies of altruistic surrogacy in well-regulated jurisdictions like Australia and the United Kingdom consistently show very low rates of regret and generally positive psychological outcomes for women who are surrogates. In fact, a longitudinal study from the University of Cambridge in the UK reported satisfaction with the experience and that healthy boundaries were maintained even years later. We absolutely should be alive to the risk to women, but I believe that this bill, particularly around the altruistic nature of surrogacy in Australia, goes a long way to protecting the wellbeing of women who may wish to engage in surrogacy.
The second harm is to children and, perhaps by extension, some people might argue harm to the family unit. Again, this is an area in which we have decades of peer-reviewed research that shows that children of same-sex parents do just as well in terms of health, education and social outcomes as children of heterosexual parents. Anyone who is a parent knows that it is a really tough gig and that we do not get it right all the time. The most important thing for a child is to be well loved and to have their needs met. We know that children who grow up in a traditional heterosexual family unit and who experience abuse or domestic violence have really poor outcomes. It is not about the nature of the parenting in terms of whether it is a traditional mum-and-dad unit or a stepfamily; there are all sorts of family units in Australia already and the outcomes for those children are exceptional when they meet the criteria of good enough parenting. The evidence shows that the outcomes for children of same-sex couples are no different from children in any other family unit. There is a whole bunch of evidence around that but I am not going to point to it because people can find it for themselves. How does this connect to this bill? In my view, the harm test has not been met. There is no demonstrable harm to children from being raised by single parents or same-sex parents, so the exclusion of those groups of people from accessing surrogacy is not justified. Any legal barriers are based on moral disapproval and not evidence of harm, and that is exactly the type of overreach that JS Mill warned about.
In conclusion, I remind members of the chamber that JS Mill's work strongly defends and protects religious freedom. In fact, he saw freedom of belief, including religious belief, as core to individual liberty and a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. I respect the right to hold religious views and that people are free to live their life in accordance with them, but we simply cannot lay claim to freedom of religion for some while using that same belief to deny equality of access to others. Belief is personal, but equality before the law is universal. Our laws must not be guided by our personal moral conformity but by evidence of harm. Here, as I have said, the harm test has not been met by evidence as there is no demonstrable harm in extending these rights. This is an opportunity to make our laws fairer, more consistent and more just. For these reasons, I support this bill. I pass on my thanks to those members who shared, with courage, their personal stories. My congratulations are extended to the minister for bringing this bill before the Parliament.
Ms Colleen Egan (Thornlie) (1:38 pm): I rise to speak in strong support of the Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025. I thank the Whips on both sides for allowing me to speak today. I was unwell last week so I was not here, but I watched the live stream of the debate on Thursday. I must say that I felt extremely proud to be a part of this caucus. It was a really meaningful debate. It was very moving, eloquent and really quite beautiful. As I say, I feel very proud to be standing here and to be part of this historic legislation.
As a former political journalist, I remember the landmark reforms of former Attorney General Jim McGinty more than 20 years ago to address discrimination in legislation in WA. I particularly recall the partnership between Attorney General Jim McGinty and the then Leader of the Greens in the Legislative Council, Giz Watson, who was universally admired and respected. Jim McGinty was outraged—and so he should have been—that Giz's life partner would not be able to receive her parliamentary superannuation in the same way that Jim's wife would be able to receive his. That outraged him. He put himself on the right side of history by reforming that law, alongside a lot of other discriminatory legislation, including in the Family Court and against same-sex couples and single women. It was a landmark reform. Part of those reforms made more than 20 years ago are in the legislation that this bill will reform. We are due for another refresh.
At the time that Jim McGinty implemented those reforms, WA was one of the nation's leaders in discrimination reform. Fast-forward to 2017 when I went into government with Attorney General John Quigley; Western Australia had become the laggard of the nation in reforms against discrimination and in a lot of other areas of the law, such as the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse, the Evidence Act—an amending bill came through recently—and multitude other reforms. In that era, surrogacy was just one of the outdated statutes when it came to discrimination reform. I remember in our first term of government we expunged homosexual historical convictions. I remember that was a bipartisan bill. In the last, most recent term, the government introduced legislation to abolish the Gender Reassignment Board, which was another important reform. I think we were the outliers in the nation on that issue, perhaps apart from New South Wales. Of course, the Equal Opportunity Act has been the subject of a very long and detailed Law Reform Commission of Western Australia piece of work.
Progressive law reform, particularly when it involves social issues, can be very complex and it can take a lot of time to not only undertake consultation, with sometimes several rounds of consultation, but also get the details exactly right. That has been the case with the Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025. I acknowledge the three health ministers who have worked on this bill. I remember when I first got into government in 2017, Roger Cook, the then Minister for Health, already had his eye on this bill and started off the process. When she was the health minister, Amber-Jade Sanderson implemented the ministerial expert panel and now our hardworking health minister, Minister Hammat, is bringing it home today. All the public servants who worked in health and justice, probably at the State Solicitor's Office and definitely at the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, would have put an awful lot of hard work into this, and I acknowledge them. I suppose they say that it takes a village to raise a child, but I think it almost takes a village to get together legislation like this. I congratulate all of them and, of course, all those who were consulted and who have lobbied very politely but persistently for this reform.
It is important to acknowledge—I have been talking a lot about discrimination and what that means for adults who are in this process—that this bill has been drafted with the primary purpose of being in the best interests of the child. Members do not have to take my word or the word of government members or the Minister for Health. Rather, they should take the word of the experts. I would like to read into the parliamentary record the media release of the Australian Medical Association's WA branch, which states:
The Australian Medical Association (WA) welcomes the introduction of the Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025 … describing it as a long-overdue reform that places patients and children at the centre of reproductive healthcare in Western Australia.
AMA (WA) President Dr Kyle Hoath said the Bill reflects contemporary clinical practice, community expectations, and the principles of equity and patient autonomy.
"This legislation brings Western Australia into alignment with national and international best practice. It removes outdated and discriminatory barriers to care and ensures all people—regardless of relationship status, gender identity or sexual orientation—can access assisted reproductive technology … and surrogacy with dignity and respect …
The AMA (WA) particularly acknowledges the Bill's emphasis on the best interests of the child and its robust consent frameworks.
"The Bill rightly places the welfare of children born through ART and surrogacy at the heart of the regulatory framework. It also provides clarity and legal certainty for families, donors, and clinicians" ...
The AMA (WA) also welcomed provisions in the Bill on embryo storage, posthumous use, and reciprocal In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF), which reflect the realities of reproductive medicine.
"Clinicians have long supported people's ability to make informed decisions about embryo storage and use, including in cases of reciprocal IVF and posthumous conception. The Bill provides a clear, ethical and practical framework for these scenarios …
"This reform will allow more Western Australians to start a family. Removing the medical infertility requirement is a critical step toward equitable access."
The AMA (WA) looks forward to working with the Cook Labor Government to support the implementation of the legislation and ensure that Western Australians continue to receive safe, ethical and patient-centred reproductive care.
I do not think we could get a more supportive endorsement for this bill from the medical professionals who know this area best.
Like other members, I have received encouragement to support this bill from constituents who have personal stories. I am particularly grateful to Kylie and Michele, a gay couple I am proud to represent in my electorate of Thornlie, for sharing their story with me. Kylie and Michele were able to access IVF, but their journey was far more difficult than it needed to be, including aspects that were discriminatory of their same-sex relationship status. According to my notes, Michele told me:
It was definitely a HARD journey. 14 transfers, 4 pregnancies, 2 miscarriages over seven years.
One of the most awful things we went through was "having to prove that we were medically infertile". We had to pay for ICSI cycles for 18 months to prove that we were classified as medically infertile. Even though they knew that we were a same-sex couple and that I had anti-phospholipid markers which were working against the chance of pregnancy.
When we first started our journey, we weren't given the option of carrying an embryo from Kylie because of the surrogacy laws in WA. No one discussed it with us as an option.
Kylie and Michele persevered, and I am pleased to say that they now have two children. But the limitation of this legislation did not stop with that happy ending. According to my notes, Michele explained:
Both of our children have hypermobility and Pectus Excavatum (related to scoliosis) … having more information about our donor would be a godsend to track genetic conditions etc. Until this bill passes, we must wait until they are 16 to know more.
Kylie and Michele are a great example of the many, many people of the rainbow community who are exemplary contributors to our society. Between them, they have decades of public service, including serving in the armed forces and working for charities for children with cancer. I am proud to represent them in Parliament today.
Anyone who has spent much time in my company knows that my two children are the loves of my life. They are without doubt my proudest achievements, and they are the only things in my world that I could not live without. But for many years I did not want to have kids. How fortunate I was to have the luxury of a last-minute change of mind, and how cruel it is that others who crave for years or decades to have a family are denied what I took for granted. One of the many blessings of my children is that I have a daily window into the lives of adolescents and young people in today's world.
I have two super smart and thoughtful humans who can educate me about what it is like for their generation in 2025. I would like to speak today a little bit about the potential impact of laws like these and debates like this one here, and soon in the other chamber, on the wellbeing and mental health of young people in our community and the signals it sends from us, the adults in power, to them. The law as it stands tells our rainbow young people that no matter how hard they strive to be good citizens, they are not equal. If you are gay or gender diverse, you can die for your country in the armed forces, you can save lives on operating tables, you can inspire children with your teaching lessons, you can win Olympic medals or become Prime Minister, but you cannot accept the offer of a friend or loved one to help start a family. What it says to our kids, their friends, schoolmates and peers is, "If you're gay or if you're gender diverse, you can study hard, work hard and devote your life for the betterment of this society, but society does not deem you worthy of equality."
As the member for Scarborough so eloquently put it:
… no matter who I was or what I contributed, I did not fit in the eyes of the laws of my home state.
To me, these words sum up the importance of this bill, not just for those who want to start a family now, but for the young people who wonder if there is a place for them in our society, no matter how hard they work.
The mental health of young people is of concern to me, as it should be to us all. Young people who identify as gay, trans and non-binary are particularly vulnerable to severe mental health challenges, including suicidal thoughts. There are families in every electorate, I am sure, who are living through this right now. Rainbow young people are often bullied by their peers and, on top of that, they are subjected in the media and on the internet to nasty public discourse and political pointscoring that is tantamount to bullying—bullying by adults. From Donald Trump to JK Rowling and the politicians here at home, kids are faced with headlines and social media post that can be hurtful and ill informed.
Rainbow young people, who in my experience are some of the most gentle people in need of love and support, can get caught up in ideological wars that are often nasty and ignorant. Even if comments are not aimed at them, that is what is in front of them. Thankfully, there are journalists and commentators who strive to balance that ignorance. I particularly acknowledge The West Australian columnist Kate Emery. Kate is a wonderfully talented writer and she brings all her intelligent analysis, logical reasoning and warm heart to her writing on these issues. She is a notable advocate for equality in the state and is firmly on the right side of history on these issues.
I encourage all members to read her opinion piece in The West Australian today. I will quote a little from it:
WA is the only place in Australia where gay men and single straight men cannot use a surrogate to have a baby.
…
The State Government, to its credit, has been trying to change these laws for a long time. The last effort in 2019 was scuttled by the efforts of conservative Christian Liberal powerbroker Nick Goiran.
…
This new Bill is both overdue and reflects what modern WA families look like.
It would be a shame if a conservative, religious minority is able to (again) hijack this debate, a possibility given the Government does not have a majority in the Legislative Council.
Does the average West Aussie care all that much if a kid has a mum and a dad, two dads or a single parent so long as they have a loving home? I don't think so…
Kate has been writing artfully about discrimination against the queer community, in particular trans kids, for several years now. I know she has copped a lot of vitriol for that. Today I would like to acknowledge her important contribution to the public discourse around these issues.
I hope that members of this Parliament, as this bill winds its way through the upper house, keep this in mind; if they choose not to support the bill, I hope they also choose to avoid false stereotypes as they do so. Every member of this Parliament would say that they care about young people's mental health. In theory, I certainly believe they do, I just hope they also show it in practice. Gay and trans kids deserve our love, our understanding and our leadership. Words matter and laws like this one matter.
I received an email last night opposing this bill from the Australian Family Association WA branch. I will still emphatically vote with the medical professionals, who I trust to administer this legislation. Just as we trust doctors in our voluntary assisted dying laws, and our gun ownership laws, we trust doctors in these assisted reproductive and surrogacy laws. The Australian Medical Association, not the Australian Family Association, should be our guide.
This legislation is about the best interests of children in the present and the future.
(Member's time extended.)
Ms Colleen Egan: I would like to say to our rainbow young people: you are loved, you are valued and you deserve every happiness in life. You can have ambitions to achieve anything, including having a family. You deserve a future free from discrimination and I am proud that the Cook Labor government is bringing that future a bit closer with this bill. I commend the bill to the house.
Ms Jodie Hanns (Collie–Preston—Parliamentary Secretary) (1:55 pm): I thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to debate on the very important Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025. I am going to make a short contribution today, but I want to place on record that I will be voting yes on this bill at the outset of my contribution.
I want to reflect on the fact that fertility is a fraught issue. Having a family is particularly challenging for many people in our community. I want to also reflect on the fact of the great irony of life as a woman—spending much of their reproductive life trying not to get pregnant, and then finding themselves in the situation in which having a family is not quite so easy. I am sorry, Premier, if that was inappropriate to say in the house.
I also want to say that in the great lottery of life, there are no guarantees about whether a person or their partner will be able to have children, regardless of their personal circumstances. For myself, I had two very healthy children. I always wanted three children. After two children, I then suffered three very significant miscarriages. With the third miscarriage, I nearly died. If not for the intervention of the amazing staff at Collie Hospital, I would not be here today.
I am very fortunate to have had two healthy children. My dreams for a third were put on hold as a result of those circumstances. I am very fortunate, but not everybody else is in the same situation. I have friends whose choices were taken away from them by cancer in their late 20s, by failed IVF or by trying unsuccessfully to have a child for 15 years and surprisingly finding themselves pregnant in their late 30s. Same-sex couples who would make the absolute best parents still could not become a family due to the settings of our political system and legislation. As a former teacher, sadly, I see many children born of heterosexual parents who suffer neglect, substance abuse in their families, family and domestic violence and, in extreme cases, sexual abuse. It is an absolute tragedy that these children, by the right of their birth, are born into families who sadly do not love them. Some of these children also end up in the child protection system. Across 30 years in the education system I have seen this all too often.
I think that we absolutely have to reinforce that surrogacy provides the choice for families to become families. We have a right for people to choose to become parents and for children to be born into a family that loves them. Let us not deny hope to those who love so deeply, like my friend Mr Stuart Aubrey, that they will move mountains to find someone brave enough to help them hold their dreams in their arms of a successful pregnancy. I believe very strongly that everybody who wishes to be in a family should be able to be in a family. Reflecting on some of the contributions of previous members, as long as that family is full of love, it does not matter what that family looks like, whether they are a single parent, a same-sex couple or a heterosexual couple.
The ability to provide a strong, loving home with firm foundations and to set young people up to strive, to love other people, to be kind, to be caring and to be empathetic is the greatest joy in creating a family and creating a community that leaves us all the stronger for the legacy of this bill.
I commend the bill to the house.
Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.
(Continued at a later stage of the sitting.)
