Ms Claire O'Connell:

On the question about siblings, that is an issue I think about a lot. In the case of the CFRA, for example, a transitional provision was allowed, whereby everybody who used a gamete donor would be identifiable but there would be about three years after the commencement of certain sections of the legislation in which anonymous gametes could be still used. Much of the reason behind that related to people who already had a child from the same gamete donor, who may have been anonymous, and they then faced the challenge of deciding whether there should be a sibling relationship between their two children or whether they should work within the framework and have to use an identifiable donor.

It is just to be conscious of things like that. It is a choice whether you want to give the discretion to the parents to prefer identity and choose that or a transitional provision where you give parents a bit of a chance to maintain those relationships.

The second question was whether I was aware of people who did not follow the CFRA. I am. In one particular instance, a couple used a known donor even though they knew, with legal advice, that they would be left out of the CFRA provisions for a retrospective declaration of parentage. The reason they did that and the reason they are excluded is that they used a known donor. All the narratives around the CFRA and the disclosure of a child's identity were becoming more prevalent in the conversation and they recognised that. They thought their child should know its genetic origins but purely for that reason they are excluded from getting a declaration of parentage. That is a considerable problem.