SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: SAME-SEX PARENTING

Adjourned debate on motion of Ms Bedford:

That the 32^nd report of the committee, entitled Same-Sex Parenting, be noted.

(Continued from 18 May 2011.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:05): I stand to support the recommendations put forward by this committee. I had the privilege this parliamentary term of being elected to the Social Development Committee and my first action on being elected to that committee was to contact the Chair (Hon. Ian Hunter in the other place) and ask if this committee could instigate an inquiry into same-sex parenting in South Australia. I am very pleased to say that the two of us were successful in getting this to be the first inquiry of the Social Development Committee in this parliamentary term.

The committee heard a number of witnesses, many of those whom, of course, were parents in same-sex relationships. We learnt from those hearings that in South Australia—which would surprise many, of course, who would remember the progressive nature of the Dunstan government in the 1970s—we are a long way behind other states when it comes to same-sex legislation, rights for same-sex parents and rights for the children of same-sex parents.

One of the inconsistencies is that in every state in Australia the non-biological parent in a relationship is entitled to be described as a parent on the birth certificate of a child who is conceived by the biological mother in an arrangement that is made by both parents, but in South Australia that is not recognised. So, in South Australia, we have well-meaning parents—parents who have gone to enormous effort and through enormous challenges to make the conscious decision to be parents—who are unable to give that child both parents. I think that in itself is of great concern in South Australia. I will not speak too much about this topic because there is a separate bill on the Notice Paper with regard to that particular recommendation.

I want to run through some of the recommendations of the Social Development Committee that I fully supported. The committee recommended that, as a matter of urgency, the Attorney-General introduce legislation to amend the Family Relationships Act to allow a female partner of a non-birth partner or birth woman who is undergoing fertilisation procedures to be legally recognised as the parent of a child, providing that the partner consented to the treatment by which the birth mother conceived the child. That refers to the points I made earlier.

The second recommendation was access to assisted reproductive technology. The committee recommended that the Minister for Health introduces legislation to amend the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 1988 to enable same-sex couples to have access to that technology. I think it is important to remember that one of the issues raised is that, again, that is available to couples interstate but not in South Australia. We used to be a progressive social leader here in South Australia but, unfortunately, over the last eight or nine years, we have failed to move with the rest of Australia.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Well, the facts are that Labor has been running this state for 33 of the last 44 years, member for Florey. For 33 of the last 44 years, Labor has been running this state and the legacy has left us behind in many areas and social progressive policy is one of them. We were there for three years from '79 to '82 and we were there fixing up an absolute disaster that Labor left us in '93 with the State Bank for eight years, so it is a bit rich for members from the other side to say that we have been there too when we have only been there for 11 years of the last 44 years by the time of the next election.

These reforms need to come from the government, and I encourage the government to come back to the committee with their comments on the recommendations that were made by the Social Development Committee, which I say is a great committee. There are no politics played in the Social Development Committee. We are seriously interested in social development here in South Australia, and the fact that we had high attendances on a year-long inquiry into same-sex parenting issues I think is evidence of the goodwill that has been produced in that committee.

Of course the other recommendation here is that same-sex couples be granted access to screening and counselling and also adoption because we know that in other states adoption by same-sex couples is available. One of the quirks that we find here in South Australia is that same-sex couples can be foster parents but they cannot be adoptive parents, so the recommendation of the committee was that that be immediately changed. The committee also recommended that the surrogacy clause be changed to not discriminate against same-sex couples.

I support all of those recommendations and, of course, the final recommendation was an education awareness strategy. The committee recommended that the Attorney-General, in collaboration with the Minister for Health and the Minister for Families and Communities, develop and implement an education strategy to raise awareness of the rights and obligations of those directly affected by any legislative changes related to same-sex parenting.

It was a very balanced report. The Hon. Dennis Hood obviously did not support many of the recommendations; in fact, I do not think he supported any of the recommendations. He says here, 'I do not agree with any of the recommendations contained in the report.' There are obvious reasons when you know the Family First platform as to why he has made those comments in the report. Of course, he will speak on his own behalf in the other place.

I stand here strongly recommending to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health that they have a good read of these recommendations, and let us once again make South Australia a leader when it comes to progressive social policy here in Australia.

Motion carried.