Skip to main content
Home
  • The Legislative Assembly meets on 16/04/2024 (01:00 PM)
    Assembly sit 16/04/2024
  • The Legislative Council meets on 16/04/2024 (01:00 PM)
    Council sit 16/04/2024
  • The Public Administration meets on 08/04/2024 (10:00 AM)
    Committee meet 08/04/2024

Parliamentary Questions


Question Without Notice No. 329 asked in the Legislative Council on 9 April 2019 by Hon Michael Mischin

Parliament: 40 Session: 1

HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND SURROGACYLEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2018

329. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health:

I refer to the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991, the Surrogacy Act 2008 and the minister's claims in the second reading speech introducing the Human Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 that there is a risk that the relevant legislation is invalid due to inconsistency with the commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

(1) Before instructing the drafting of the bill, did the government seek, receive or have to hand legal advice on the question of invalidity from —

(a) Solicitor-General Quinlan, SC;

(b) Solicitor-General Thomson, SC; or

(c) the State Solicitor's Office;

and, if so, what is the date of that advice and when did it receive that advice?

(2) Is all that advice consistent in respect of the need to amend the legislation?

(3) Which specific provisions of the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991 and the Surrogacy Act 2008 does the advice say are inconsistent with the commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and need to be corrected by this bill?

(4) Did Associate Professor Sonia Allan have access to any of this advice during her review of the legislation; and, if so, which?

Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied:

I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I am advised the following.

(1) (a) Yes, dated 28 September 2017 and received by the Department of Health on 29 September 2017.

(b) No.

(c) Yes, dated 18 February 2016 and received by the Department of Health on or about that date.

(2)–(3) This question contravenes standing order 105(1)(b) in that it seeks a legal opinion and, in any event, the legal advice is subject to legal professional privilege and the question cannot be answered without waiving privilege in the advice.

(4) No.