Kathy Marks: Gammy critics fail nutcase test

David and Wendy Farnell appeared on 60 Minutes with surrogate daughter Pippah. Photo / 60 Minutes

David and Wendy Farnell put on a toe-curlingly awful performance as they blundered their way through a 60 Minutes television interview about their disabled son, Gammy, born to a surrogate mother in Thailand.

But they made an impression on one of Channel Nine's million-plus viewers, Western Australian Health Minister Kim Hames, who declared himself convinced by David's protestations of remorse (he is a convicted child sex offender) and expressed confidence that Gammy's twin sister, Pippah, would be safe in the couple's care.

Although he quickly retracted those comments - which were widely condemned, not least because child protection authorities are in the middle of an investigation - you have to wonder about the calibre of the people running Western Australia. (Hames is also the state's Deputy Premier.)

Just as couples seeking to foster or adopt children - but not those entering into overseas surrogacy deals - are obliged to undergo stringent background checks, perhaps aspiring politicians, especially ministers, ought to sit a basic intelligence test, or be subjected to some kind of competency audit.

Let's call it the "nutcase test". At the federal level, where decisions can have far-reaching effects, how many of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's senior colleagues would pass it?

Not, surely, Employment Minister and Senate leader Eric Abetz, who last week cited widely discredited research linking abortion with breast cancer.

Not Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews, who is to open next month's conference in Melbourne of the World Congress of Families, a stridently pro-life and anti-gay group. (Abetz is attending with Liberal senator Cory Bernardi.)

And not Attorney-General George Brandis, who categorised people who consider the science behind man-made climate change to be settled as "ignorant" and "medieval".

Bernardi had to resign as Abbott's parliamentary secretary in 2012 after saying legalising gay marriage could lead to bestiality becoming socially acceptable.

But back to that 60 Minutes interview, which was recorded amid the international outcry sparked by claims by Gammy's surrogate mother, Pattharamon Janbua, that the Farnells abandoned him when they returned to Australia with his healthy sister.

Among the couple's most bitterly criticised utterances was their admission that, had Gammy's Down syndrome been detected earlier in the pregnancy, they would have sought to have him aborted.

As David Farnell put it: "I don't think any parent wants a son with a disability. Parents want their children to be healthy and happy."

Farnell spoke a lot of rubbish during the interview, but I wouldn't include those sentiments in this category, and I doubt that anyone - other than religious zealots - would, honestly, disagree with them.

Yet the couple have been lambasted by commentators who normally would fight tooth and nail to defend the right to terminate a pregnancy, including on grounds of a disability. Thanks to their peculiar circumstances, and the taboos surrounding surrogacy, they've been judged by more exacting standards.

The unspoken implication being, you can't have a baby yourselves, so be grateful for what you get. And I think that's a bit nutty.