Surrogacy & the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 2025

The Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 2025 has raised significant concern across Western Australia, particularly around protections for women, families and children. I share these concerns, and throughout the parliamentary process I have been highlighting many of these concerns and advocating for sensible safeguards that reflect community expectations.

Protecting Vulnerable Women in Surrogacy

Surrogacy is a deeply personal and complex matter, and the law must recognise the realities involved. Two key safeguards for surrogate mothers are essential:

• Amending the minimum age in the Bill for a woman to become a surrogate above 25 years, and
• Retaining the requirement that a woman has previously given birth before becoming a surrogate.

I will support both amendments because they reflect community expectations and ensure surrogates have the maturity, life experience, and understanding of pregnancy required to take on such a profound responsibility.

Protecting Children born of ART & Surrogacy

The identity of children born of ART and Surrogacy must be protected and access to their genetic history at as young an age as possible is essential.

• Adding amendments to require intended parents of donor conceived children to receive counselling that children must be made aware of their history as early as possible (and no later than 10 years of age).
• Adding amendments protecting the genetic history of children born to ART & Surrogacy.

Children deserve to know who they are.

Clarity in Language Matters

During debate on Clause 5 of the Bill, I moved an amendment to replace the word “persons” with “women”. While this amendment was voted down after I called a division of the Legislative Council, the principle remains important. (You can see the results of the division below).

As I stated in Parliament:

“The change to so-called gender-inclusive language with the use of ‘persons’ instead of ‘women’ makes no sense, diminishes the clarity of the language and only serves to erase in law the unique and special attributes of women for no conceivable reason other than political correctness.”

This concern extends to other terminology in the Bill such as "birth parents" instead of "mothers". I have made it clear that gender-neutral phrases such as “birth parents” should not override biological reality or erase women from legislation.

Strengthening Obligations and Safeguards

Another key concern relates to the strength and enforceability of the Bill’s guiding principles. In several clauses around health, wellbeing, safety, and informed consent, the Bill uses the word “should” instead of “must”. I raised this during the Committee of the Whole debate, questioning why weaker language was being used in areas where clarity and certainty are essential. My concern was that “should” risks making important obligations appear optional rather than required.

To address this, I moved a amendments to replace “should” with “must,” so the guiding principles carry real force and are applied consistently. These amendments were not supported by the government, even though “must not” was used when it came to discrimination against those seeking ART services.

My Commitment

The Bill is still being considered in the Committee of the Whole stage. I will continue to argue for amendments that:

• protect women in surrogacy arrangements,
• ensure strong and enforceable safeguards,
• maintain clear, biologically accurate language, and
• keep the best interests of children paramount.

Legislation of this significance must be clear, fair and protective. While I do not intend to support the Bill, I remain committed to ensuring the final law meets these expectations.