Governor's Speech

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:39): I rise to reflect upon the Governor's Address in Reply speech and the impact that that has had for sexuality equality in this state in this past year. Of course, as members know, the Governor's Address in Reply pens and pronounces the Premier's vision for our state, and it promised many, many things at the start of this parliamentary year. Well, we have seen driverless cars on our roads, but we still have parentless children. We began the year with the promise, in our 40^th year since we proudly decriminalised homosexuality in this state (the first state to do so), and over four decades since the awful murder of Dr George Duncan, but we finish this year with very little on the books in terms of actual law reform.

I want to reflect on the privilege of hearing Stephen Fry speak just a week ago and commend the Dunstan Foundation for their inspirational event, which sold out within a matter of hours. There was an appetite in that community and that crowd there that day for true equality in terms of sexuality and gender identity reforms, and yet those celebrations and this fanfare that we have had around the 40^th anniversary ring very hollow for many long-term activists who have fought for equality for so many decades and yet are still waiting. I am so frustrated I do not actually have words for this parliament, so I will use the words of Ian Purcell, who posted on 3 December of this year on his Facebook account:

GOOD TIDINGS OF COMFORT AND JOY IN PARLIAMENT TODAY—BUT NOT FOR ALL

There was joy in the House of Assembly today when a Liberal Private Member’s Bill was passed unanimously. It was a matter of compassion which united the House. Changes to the law will now allow foster parents (as well as birth parents) to be named on the death certificate of a child for whom they had been caring when the child died. The Attorney-General and his Departmental staff were thanked profusely for their unstinting advice and cooperation in wording the necessary amendments to the Act in question. There were congratulations all round for the way in which the major parties had put aside their differences to enable the passage of the Bill.

I add my congratulations. The death of a child is a terrible thing. However the law will now recognise the love and commitment of foster parents in a way which will provide at least some comfort to these families in their time of grief.

Unfortunately, under current state law, this comfort will not be extended to all families. In some lesbian families, the non-birth mother is not legally recognised. Her name cannot be added to the birth certificate of a child born into her relationship with the child’s birth mother, and also therefore, in the extremely sad circumstance of the death of that child to whom she had given unconditional love and care, her name will not appear on the child’s death certificate either. So what price, compassion, I have to ask the Attorney-General, and indeed all members of the House of Assembly, for unlike the foster parenting bill which was given swift passage through the House (and rightly so), a little bill which would remove the requirement for a same-sex couple to co-habit for three years before a non-birth parent is given legal recognition, has been allowed to languish in the House for weeks.

In fact, it was on the order of business in the House of Assembly today, but it was last on the list. Time ran out. It was not debated, let alone passed. It’s not a contentious issue. Four years ago legislation was passed to allow both parents in a same-sex relationship to be on the birth certificates of their children, but with an anomaly that seems to have been overlooked, for under the Domestic Partnerships Act, a same-sex relationship is only legally recognised if the couple have co-habited for at least three years (no such restriction applies to heterosexual de facto or married couples).

Ian Purcell goes on to note, 'So why hasn’t the bill been passed in the House of Assembly?' commenting on the fact that it in fact passed this Legislative Council many, many months ago. Ian Purcell puts forward:

The Attorney-General does not support this bill, unlike the foster parenting bill. The Labor MP, the Hon Katrine Hildyard, was refused permission to sponsor the bill in the House of Assembly, so Liberal MP, the Hon David Pisoni, did so. Then the Attorney-General tabled an amendment that would see a separate registry established for same-sex couples with children! Tammy Franks was compelled to post on her Facebook page, ‘For all the talk of Sexuality and Gender Identity law reforms for equality in South Australia this year, this one little bill that removes the requirement for a same sex couple to cohabit for 3 years to gain recognition to protect their child still languishes in the lower house. Dear SA Labor, equality law reform—just do it!’

But they didn't...In the meantime, Elise and Sally and their young son Tadgh are just one family living with this continuing legal discrimination. There will be no good tidings of comfort and joy for them from parliament today. In this Christian season which celebrates the birth of the boy-child Jesus 2000 years ago to mother Mary and step-father (?) Joseph, Elise has posted some questions—

and actually urged the Attorney-General to do the right thing, step out of the way and allow this year that had such promise to end not with a whimper, but with a bang of equality.