Protecting Children and Surrogate Mothers in ART Laws

The unseen risks behind sweeping surrogacy reforms

In the calm corridors of the Legislative Council, we recently completed a marathon debate on what promises to be one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in our state’s reproductive health landscape. The Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill 2025 is vast, complex, and, importantly, controversial—spanning over 369 clauses. Many of us have wrestled deeply with the ethical and practical fabric woven into its pages.

This isn’t simply legislation it’s a framework that will touch the lives of children born through surrogacy, the women who carry them, and the families hoping for a child. As a medical practitioner turned politician, it’s my duty to read between the lines beyond ideology and rhetoric and to ask: does this bill truly serve the wellbeing and safety of those most vulnerable—the children and surrogate mothers?

A tale of two priorities: children and surrogate mothers

The bill states clearly that the best interests of the child are paramount, followed by the wellbeing of surrogate mothers. Yet look closely at the amendments passed through the Committee of the Whole House and an unsettling picture emerges. The protections that we've had for over a decade—such as the minimum age of 25 for surrogate mothers or the requirement that surrogate mothers have previously given birth—have been stripped away and replaced with provisions that actually prioritise the desires of intended parents.

This shift troubles me deeply because the journey of surrogacy is not only medical but profoundly emotional and ethical. An 18-year-old, potentially still navigating the complexities of her own development and vulnerabilities, suddenly becomes eligible to be a surrogate. This isn’t just a number or a clause; to me, it’s a warning sign of potential exploitation amid financial hardship—a harsh reality too many women suffer.

The evidence is clear. While the bill bans commercial surrogacy, the penalties have been dramatically softened. Imprisonment, the strongest deterrent, is replaced by fines that may well be seen as the cost of doing business. That’s not prevention. It’s a revolving door waiting to spin. This isn’t just legal parlance; it’s the risk of commodifying human life and relationships. The fear is not theoretical—there have been documented international cases where commercial pressures have exploited vulnerable women and children. Ignoring this puts our families and communities at risk.

As a community of evidence-based thinkers and forward believers in compassionate policy, we must wrestle with these uncomfortable truths. We cannot simply accept legislation that leaves the door open to risks we have the power to close. The human cost is real: the anxiety of young women coerced or pressured into surrogacy, the pain of children denied clear access to their origins, and the erosion of societal safeguards designed to protect the vulnerable.

One bright beacon among the complexity is the improved transparency in donor conception, allowing children access to birth and genetic information from age 16. This is a much-needed step towards healing past harms and supporting identity rights. Yet, it is a small light amid a forest of gaps in protection.

If these are issues you care deeply about as I do—about the dignity of women and the rights of children—I invite you to join this conversation and stay informed as these laws unfold. Our work does not end at the third reading; it begins. For more reflections and updates, consider subscribing to my YouTube channel where we discuss these matters candidly and compassionately.

Subscribe here for insights from Dr Brian Walker

Science, conscience and the call for better safeguards

During the debates there were voices raising concerns that stem from both scientific understanding and heartfelt conscience. Several members pointed out the failure to retain key safeguards, such as criminal checks to protect children from abuse, independent oversight by bodies like the Reproductive Technology Council, and stronger penalties for breaches of surrogacy laws.

These missed opportunities for tightening protections are not just bureaucratic failings. They possibly risk creating real harm. The removal of independent oversight means surrogate mothers and children might not have those unbiased advocates they need when medical needs and difficult decisions arise. Reliance on ‘good faith’ from all parties is a noble hope but insufficient to guarantee safety.

As a doctor, I have seen firsthand how vulnerable people can become when safeguards vanish. Compassion without caution can lead to unnecessary suffering. The legislation should have been a chance to strike a better balance: enabling the joys of family building while firmly putting child welfare and surrogate safety first. Instead, the bill tips towards making access easier for intended parents while softening the gravity of certain offences.

It’s not surprising that the bill has drawn both heartfelt support and deep opposition across the chamber—because surrogacy and assisted reproductive technologies truly sit at the crossroads of science, ethics, and humanity. What we decide here shapes lives and families for generations.

Supporting this bill as it stands is a complex choice. While I welcome reforms that open doors to parenthood for many, I cannot support a bill that, despite conscientious amendments, sidesteps critical protections for women and children.

For those wanting to read the full proceedings and examine the detailed debate, I encourage you to visit the official Hansard record. I also invite you to join Legalise Cannabis WA—because sometimes progress in one area sparks hope for fairness and thoughtful reform in others. Together, we can work towards laws that truly protect the vulnerable and empower us all to build healthier communities.

Join Legalise Cannabis WA