Hi Seph

I'm also a lawyer and I've been through a similar set of discussions with other lawyers. I noticed that the scrutiny of acts committee actually referred the bill back to parliament because they thought this provision may have been a breach of the Charter of Human Rights.

At the time the bill was being considered I emailed Sue Pennicuik and asked her to fight for us. I didn't get a response and assumed it had fallen on deaf ears but upon reading legislative debate I now know that she did an amazing job trying to fight to have it taken out.

see this link Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill - amendment re police checks | Greens MPs in Victoria

My personal favourite (or rather not so favourite) quote is the one from Mr Finn where he says:

"My very great concern is that we could have a situation where two male paedophiles commission -- and I have to say to the house that I detest that word in this context; the use of that word very much reflects the government's attitude to children -- a child, and if there were no police checks, there would be nothing anybody could do to stop them. I would not want to see a child put into a position where they would be effectively under the guardianship of paedophiles. To allow that to happen would be a total abrogation of our responsibility as members of Parliament. For that reason I will be opposing this particular amendment."