Ms Natalie Gamble:

I think the Senator is right. These things are weaponised. It is really important to be very factual and clear about what we are actually talking about. For most people, the public consciousness of commercial surrogacy is that the surrogates themselves can be compensated beyond their expenses. Actually, there are other elements to what might be called commercial surrogacy. It is about the intermediaries being able to make a profit out of arranging the surrogacy, and whether contracts are enforceable between a parent and surrogate without other things around those agreements being in place to ensure safeguarding. There are lots of different elements of it.

I think we need to look at those individual things. In terms of compensation to surrogates, it is all about the context. What we see, for example, with American surrogacy arrangements, is that surrogates are paid compensation in a very open and transparent way. They have legal advice, screening, psychological evaluations and a lot of support via professional agencies. The relationships between parents and surrogates feel very balanced, fair and ethical. The fact that the surrogates are being paid does not harm the ethical nature of the surrogacy. In other jurisdictions, there is much more risk of an imbalance of power between the parents and the surrogates, particularly where there is a wealth imbalance, where there is a language barrier, and most importantly of all, where there are profit-making intermediaries who are controlling the arrangement and not allowing that direct relationship between the parents and the surrogate.

Just talking about commercial surrogacy as an evil of itself is a really naive way of looking at things, because it misses all of that nuance. It is about looking at whether compensation is being paid to the surrogates for what they are doing, and if so, if there is a context around that to make sure that they are giving informed consent and that there is a balanced relationship. It is also about looking at the role of the intermediaries and whether they are playing a positive role, supporting everybody, carrying out screening, being belt and braces and making sure that everybody is safe, or whether they are carrying out a role where they are keeping people apart and managing the situation in a very controlling way. Those are the questions to ask. That is why I said in my opening statement that we need to really drill down into what makes surrogacy ethical, rather than just saying that if it is commercial, it is unethical, and it if it altruistic, it is ethical.

On the other side of the fence, altruistic arrangements can be unethical. For example, there could be an arrangement between siblings, where, let us say, one is not being paid, but feels under enormous pressure to be a surrogate when it is not something she really wants to do. The involvement of money is not in itself a determinant of whether something is ethical or not. What we are really asking is whether there is exploitation, whether one side it taking advantage of the other, and whether there is informed consent. Those are the questions we should be asking.