According to this article (Sydney Morning Herald) It is believed that the proposed changes to the Surrogacy Act 2010 (A bill I am yet to read and cannot so far find) will not only de-regulate altruistic surrogacy, meaning that there are no legal protections for parents, but that it will criminalise it, when it is for singles, same sex couples, and de-facto couples of less than two years. This comment does come from Cameron Dick, who was QLD Attorney-General for the Bligh Government, so it may be an overstatement. I doubt it.
Labor’s Surrogacy Act 2010 decriminalised altruistic surrogacy – A situation where a woman does not receive “a payment, reward or other material benefit or advantage (other than the reimbursement of the birth mother’s surrogacy costs)” (Quote from Surrogacy Act 2010 Section 10 – Meaning of a commercial surrogacy agreement) Commercial surrogacy agreements are still illegal.
So the Labor Act provides all people an avenue to have children and raise a family, regardless of gender or marital status, provided they can find someone who is willing to do it out of the goodness of their heart.
The LNP’s changes (again, according to Cameron Dick) will penalise same sex couples or singles seeking to be parents through altruistic surrogacy with a jail sentence of up to 3 years.
The Australian Christian Lobby’s Wendy Francis comments and spouts the usual drivel on Friday 22 June: “This is the right thing and is in the best interest of the child, something the state is bound to uphold under the UN Convention on the rights of the child” – At least they have the decency to comment only on the issue at hand.
Not so much FamilyVoice Queensland or the Australian Family Association, according to this Sky News Article
FamilyVoice Queensland and the Australian Family Association earlier this month said surrogacy rights for gay couples was the next battlefront, after winning changes on same-sex unions.
Isn’t enough enough? Haven’t you queerbashed the community sufficiently, Religious Right? It’s clear that ACL and the Fundamentalist Christian Right want to return to the days when gays were not recognised, that it was illegal. I wonder if it’s possible for a federally recognised de facto relationship to be grounds for imprisonment under a State Criminal code…
As for Newman’s pre-election promise that surrogacy laws would not be touched?
The Star Observer quotes Newman as saying:
Over the whole 12-month period of the campaign I never at any stage had had any advice on the matter because it had been dealt with back in 2010
Frankly, the mistake was not understanding what my MPs had been discussing.
You can’t tell me this doesn’t ring alarm bells.
This statement of Newman’s (Yesterday) leaves us with two interpretations:
- He’s telling the truth: Our premier is supposed to be able to run a state, but he can’t even make sure he’s across his own party’s policies before an election. He obviously heard his MPs discussing this – otherwise he wouldn’t be telling us he wasn’t “understanding what [his] MPs had been discussing.” He would have said he didn’t know it was being discussed. Or,
- He’s not telling the truth. He’s been caught in a situation that is at loggerheads with statements he made mere days before the election. The only way he can make these two situations line up is if he pleads ignorance. He would probably have been better off using Howard’s “Non-core-promise” line.
Either way, we still couldn’t trust him, but we’d never be able to draw the conclusion that he’s either admitting that he is inept or lying to us. (additional interpretations are welcome)